ART AMUSES 0F Sz-Ie ES'écategfial M9

Home , Judith Crist, Stanley Kauffmann

ART AMUSES 0F sz-iE ES‘éCATEGfiAL M9 WLFESSSCfia‘lL fififimfififi 3% 3F {kflxafiPAPR Fiiékf CRE‘E'ECS MD ‘E‘riE fi‘EELUEfiCg-L W553i GREYISS MEL?» GEE READERS

Thesis for the Degm of M. A. mam STATE ammsm PATR‘CIA A. DEMON l 9 7 6

aWWW\llWHNllﬂﬂllllUWI\lUIIHHHHHN ' L I B R A R Y « 3 1293 10474 Michigan State University .

amomc av " mm: a SUNS' 300K BINDERY INC. 1 WHPIIT. IICIIQII RA . ,. , I 3'"- ‘f ;_./ kayoﬁ": !- '3

:a'” , '15‘.‘.‘§§‘-‘; l 153““ ‘WM i g“; 6.6 "In!

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF THE EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND OF NEWSPAPER FILM CRITICS AND THE INFLUENCE THESE CRITICS WIELD ON READERS

Patricia A. Denton

This study was designed to determine the news— paper movie critic's role and influence on readers. Its purpose was to evaluate from responses to a questionnaire three points deemed integral to the understanding of film criticism: (1) the film critic/reviewer's description of his job and its purpose, (2) the education, training, and newspaper experience of the newspaper critic/reviewer and

(3) the influence critic/reviewers feel they have on their readers.

The survey instrument was a mail questionnaire containing seventy-one items divided into five categories.

A sample of journalists representing 150 daily newspapers was drawn. The list from which the sample was taken included all 496 motion picture, entertainment, and amusement editors listed in The 1974 Editor and Publisher Yearbook.

Fifty-six critic/reviewers completed the questionnaire. Patricia A. Denton

Analysis of responses indicated that a significant number of newspaper motion picture critics, many who work only part-time in that capacity, have been trained in film.

Still further, there is a small but noticeable difference in the amount of influence those trained in film and those not trained in film feel they wield on their readers.

Among critics with film training, the largest percentage said they felt they had a moderate to strong influence on their readers. The highest percentage of the respondents who had not been trained in film said they had little or no influence.

The difference between a critic and a reviewer, a continuing point of controversy among some motion picture critics, was found to have been given little emphasis by the largest percentage of those surveyed. This study found that many, being only part-time writers on film, show little preference for either term.

The survey also provided an educational profile that aspiring film critics might use as a guideline. The majority of the fifty-six respondents suggested a journalism major and film minor as preparation for work as a film critic. Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism,

College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State

University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree.

AN ANALYSIS OF

THE EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND

OF NEWSPAPER FILM CRITICS

AND THE INFLUENCE THESE CRITICS

WIELD ON READERS

Patricia A. Denton

A THESIS

Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1976

" J

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A special note of gratitude is extended to several

individuals who played important roles in the ultimate

completion of this study.

To those who provided inspiration, direction and

general knowledge of research, Dr. George A. Hough, III,

Joan Deppa, Dave Reddick, Carmen Scott Hardin, Mrs. Barbara

McClain, and My Mother and Father I dedicate this work and

offer my sincere appreciation for their time, efforts, and

patience.

Also, a special thanks is extended to those

seventy-six neWSpaper film critics who took time to respond

to the questionnaire.

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O I O O O O O C O O C 0

LIST OF TABLES O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

INTRODUCTION 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

PART I. A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF FILM CRITICISM

CHAPTER

I. THE CRITIC/REVIEWER CONTROVERSY AND THE FUNCTIONS AND INFLUENCE OF FILM CRITICISM

Criticism Defined Critic vs. Reviewer Controversy Function and Goal of Film Criticism The Power of the Film Critic Harris Poll Critic as Superstar?

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF FILM CRITICISM AS COMPARED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FILM ...... 26

The Eight-Minute Beginnings: 1900-1910 The Silent Era: 1910—1928 Movies Become Vocal: 1928-1939 Under Citizen Kane's Shadow: The Forties Television Invades Hollywood: The Fifties The Influx of Independents and Youth: The Sixties Hollywood's Decline?: The Seventies

PART II. A STUDY OF PRESENT DAY NEWSPAPER FILM CRITICS

III. METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 53

IV. TABULATION OF RESPONSES ...... 59

iii CHAPTER Page

V. COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES 91

VI. COMPARISON OF RESPONSES WITH THE STUDY'S HYPOTHESES 103

APPENDIX . . 110

BIBLIOGRAPHY 120

iv LIST OF TABLES

Page

Years newspaper film critics had held present position ...... 61

Film critics' previous experience on present newspaper ...... 63

Number of critics having had specific film

training 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 65

Critics' majors in college ...... 66

Film critics' performance, directing and/or production experience ...... 68

Comparison of percentages of critics' responses to terms describing their actual position and the label under their by-line 7O

Number of films critics reviewed a week . . 71

Number of reviews critics wrote a week . . . 71

How soon critics wrote a review after seeing

a film 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 73

10. Newspaper film critics' experiences with deadline pressure and review length restrictions ...... 74

11. Those who edited newspaper film critics'

work 0 O O O I O O C O I I O O O O O O O 0 75

12. Kinds of articles critics had written besides reviews ...... 76

13. Percentage of newspaper film critics that read reviews in five national publications 77

14. Percentage of critics that ranked reasons persons attended movies in the following

order 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 78 Table Page

15. Percentage of critics who designated a specific group as the one who most often read their reviews ...... 80

16. Amount of influence newspaper critics felt they had on their readers ...... 80

17. Frequency that readers communicated with newspaper film critics ...... 81

18. Amount of agreement with critics' views as was communicated to them by their readers . 82

19. Percentage of critics who felt pressure to refrain from using certain terms ...... 83

20. Percentage of critics choosing each statement as the best definition of a critic . . . . . 85

21. Percentage of critics choosing each statement as the best definition of a reviewer . . . . 85

22. Percentage of critics choosing each statement as the best definition of criticism . . . . 85

23. Newspaper critics' suggested schooling for aspiring critics ...... 86

24. Critics' choice-top 12 motion pictures . . . . 88

25. Percentage of respondents in each age grouping 89

26. Percentage of respondents completing varied levels of education ...... 89

27. Percentage of respondents in varied salary

levels 0 , O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 89

28. Definitions chosen by the respondents as the best for describing a critic and a reviewer. 94

29. Education recommended by critics with and without training ...... 96

30. Reason papers listing a motion picture or entertainment editor no longer used movie reviews; comparison in circulation . . . . . 98

vi INTRODUCTION

As motion pictures have become an increasingly popular medium in the United States, a few of the more visible critics who write for New York publications and large circulation magazines, have been widely interviewed and reviewed themselves.

Yet very little information has been gathered about those journalists who critique or review motion pictures in the daily newspapers throughout the country.

The purpose of this study was to determine the role newspaper movie critic/reviewers, as a whole, have played in the growing interest in the cinema.

The study, based on a mail questionnaire, was also designed to collect data on newspaper film critics' education, training in film, and journalistic experience.

The questionnaire was sent to 150 newspaper motion picture, entertainment, and amusement editors, randomly selected from the 496 listed in The 1974 Editor and Pub— lisher Yearbook. Seventy-six, approximately 50 per cent,

of those surveyed responded to the study, with fifty-six,

37.3 per cent, completing the seventy-one item questionnaire. What is the movie critic/reviewer's function? Do his readers respond favorably or unfavorably to his reviews? Are movie critics really necessary?

These are the questions that will be addressed in the study. PART I

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF FILM CRITICISM CHAPTER I

THE CRITIC/REVIEWER CONTROVERSY AND THE FUNCTIONS

AND INFLUENCE OF FILM CRITICISM

It is the era of the critic as superstar. As the arts have expanded . . . a need has been created for more and more critics to write about them. Some of these critics . . . have become as famous as the artists they praise or pan. They are courted, quoted on marquees, turn up on TV talk shows . . . And yet, critics are also scorned and resented.l

Arthur Cooper discloses in this statement, the crux of a problem which has impeded the growth and development of the motion picture critic/reviewer into a universally acknowledged, relevant and reliable source of information.

In the relatively short span of time that motion picture criticism has existed, confined within a single life span, an ever present controversy has been waged concerning the critic/reviewer's position and whether or not he should even be allowed to exist.

What impels the critic/reviewer to feel that he should criticize and label one film better than another and then believe he can influence others with his views?

lArthur Cooper, "Critic as Superstar," Newsweek, December 24, 1973, p. 96. Criticism Defined

Before discussing the essence of this controversy concerning the critic/reviewer and his importance to the movie industry and the public itself, a basic, pertinent question should be asked. What is criticism? Donald

Cushman, in his article "An Analysis of a Movie Critic"

said: "It is a discipline that seeks as its end the under-

standing of man through the investigation and appraisal of the activities of men."2

The word itself comes from the Greek krinein which means to separate or to discern. Criticism is believed to have begun in the Fourth Century B.C. with Aristotle's

Poetics. Film criticism, however, has only very recently developed into an accepted area of criticism.

Criticism may be divided into two primary types,

impressionistic and objective. In impressionistic criti— cism the critic's purpose is to communicate his opinion and

impressions about the work he sees rather than analyze the nature of his subject. Reviewing, Y'hich is not analytical

in nature, could be called impressionistic. A reviewer merely records his immediate reactions to a film.

Objective criticism, on the other hand, tries to

judge the work on a basis of standards that are as free as

2Donald Cushman, "An Analysis of a_Movie Critic," Critical Perspectives on Communication (Unpublished textbook, Michigan State UniverSity, 1973), sec. IV, p. 29. possible of personal bias. In this type of criticism, a critic may compare a work with others of the same kind to determine how well it realizes the possibilities of the art it represents.3

With these objective well-defined divisions, why not eliminate entirely the use of the controversial terms critic and reviewer and instead use the terms impression-

istic critic and objective critic?

Critic vs. Reviewer Controversy

The critic vs. reviewer controversy is one that has long harassed the field of artistic criticism. If it could be so easily settled it would have been years ago. But, today many critics, both impressionistic and objective, are still fanning the fires which keep the controversy alive.

Leo Bobker's definition says the critic must not be confused with the reporter who tells readers how he liked the work and briefly retells the story. Thus, we are for a moment back to the age-old division in the ranks. The thoughtful and scholarly critic dissects and analyzes the work in both a historical and contemporary content, Bobker says. "He seeks to give his readers insights into the author's technique and purpose, and to direct the reader to those elements in the work that are meaningful and

3"Criticism," World Book Encyclopedia, 1960, III, 913. worthy of special consideration." Bobker claims that above all the critic must have a passionate commitment to the art about which he writes.4

Philip Nobile in his book Favorite Movies divides

motion picture writers into two camps--"highbrow" critics and "middlebrow" buffs or reviewers. Whereas the former are strictly interested in art, the latter can content

themselves with trash, he notes. "So-called critics refer to buffs as pedants and supposed buffs slap critics for being too bookish."5

Stephen Koch also differentiates between a

reviewer and a critic. The reviewer, he says, is funda- mentally a newsman. His review is a piece of news where

speed, topicality and fact are the strong points. The critic publishes after the reviewer has forgotten what the movie was about, Koch continues. His Virtues are "long meditation, a firm historical sense, profound insight and

truth."6

The reviewer's mass audience, Koch says, does not

particularly want new critical ideas or deep commitment;

4Leo R. Bobker, Elements of Film (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 19697} p. 234.

5Philip Nobile, ed., Favorite Movies: Critics' Choice (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973), p. l.

6Stephen Koch, "The Cruel, Cruel Critics," Saturday Review, December 26, 1970, p. 12. it wants news and a prediction--"Will we like it or not?"

Judith Crist of New York Magazine and TV Guide and Vincent

Canby of The New York Times are writers whose essential

function is to give advice and give it in a hurry.

Further distinction between the critic and the reviewer arises with "cosmopolitan" criticism. Cosmopolitan critics write for publications such as The New York Times,

The Village Voice, Newsweek, Time and The New Yorker.

What sets these cosmopolitan critics apart from other motion picture writers is their popular influence.

The movie reviewer, who most often appears on the amusement pages of local newspapers, differs from the cosmopolitan critic in many ways, Thelma Altshuler and Richard

Janars said. Although the reviewer may be influential, he does not have the same reputation. Unlike the cosmopolitan critic, this reviewer tends to like everything he sees.

His lack of discrimination may be caused by his mis- taken belief that no one should say something nice or quiet; it is more likely, however, that he has moved to his job as critic from some other position on the paper and that because of general lack of knowledge about drama he has a heart too soon made glad.7

In a lecture at the Fourth New York Film Festival,

Parker Taylor said there can be no responsible film criticism as long as nominally serious critics imitate the

7Thelma Altshuler and Richard P. Janaro, Responses to Drama (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967), p. 153. habits of journalistic reviewers. A journalistic reviewer's job is such that he must, even at his best, assume that Hollywood has a standard of the best and that this is authoritative at any given time, by any given measure. But the rule of the best, according to Taylor, is invalidated by having been industrially determined.

Thus, he says, nothing could be more foolish than recog- nizing it.

To hold their jobs on dailies and weeklies, reviewers have to approve a minimum number of the local products and imported products, Taylor says.

A few junior reviewers pretend not to accept Holly- wood standards and interests-—these are ones who lambast one day and laud the next--and perhaps they don't accept them, consciously, but unconsciously they are occupational victims of the same standards and interests.

Judith Crist, on the other hand, does not recognize that such a dichotomy exists. She holds that newspaper movie criticism as a whole was and still largely is in an abysmally low state, as the few first-rate critics who tried it discovered to their sorrow. There is not one paper, she says, that has a clean slate as far as the integrity of its film critic has been concerned. The reason is simple, Mrs. Crist claims.

8Parker Taylor, "Is Film Criticism only Propa- ganda?," in The New American Cinema, ed. by Gregory Battcock (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967), p. 67. 10

Movie advertising is a seven-day-a-week-every-day-of- the-year source of revenue and movie moguls are in the high places where publishers find friends. .During my reporting days at the Herald Tribune one good movie critic bit the dust and another simply had to bow out.

Renata Adler, for a while a New York Times critic,

agrees that advertising causes many problems for the newspaper critic/reviewer. Movie advertising, she says, with its distortions, cuts, misrepresentations and downright camp reversals, seems to make the assumption that the public would rather be misled by a few superlatives lifted from a critical context than read what the writer actually said.

Therefore motion picture writers continue to fight within their ranks. Each hopes to find the title that will give them the credibility they are looking for.

This is a difficult task in a country where film is regarded simultaneously as high art and something pleasant and frivolous.

Function and Goal of Film Criticism

But, preceding this controversy in importance is the need for defining the function and goal of film criticism itself. Within the last decade, peOple have again begun to stand in long lines to View the latest motion

9Judith Crist, The Private Eye, the Cowboy and The Very Naked Girl (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967), p. xiv. 11 picture. Whether it is the present decline in the economy in the United States or interest in the advances in film technique, motion pictures have regained some of the audience lost to television in the Forties. What part does the movie critic play in this increased interest in motion pictures?

Judith Crist subscribes to the James Agee premise that film criticism is a conversation between moviegoers.

I relish agreement but I think quite frankly that my immediate goal is to keep the conversation going, to stimulate my listener into a response whether it involves a reappraisal of his own opinions or an affirmation of his disagreement. If I can just prod a person or two into just thinking for himself, let alone organizing his thought into opinion form-— critical mission practically accomplished.10

The most common attacks on criticism are either that it is unconstructive or that it is unnecessary, John

Simon said in Private Screenings. "Unnecessary apparently,

because the public can think for itself: if a film is good it will be accepted; if it is bad, it will fail. What need then for critics?" he asks. Simon feels the art world is full of works whose true worth took far too long to be accepted. "To the extent that criticism can accelerate the verdict, it can speed the coming of pleasure and enlighten- ment, and spare us the waste of what we have the least of-- time."11

lOIbid., p. xvii.

llJohn Simon, Private Screenings (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), P. l. 12

Free and complete film criticism, endorsed by

Stanley Kauffmann, film critic for The New Republic, has

three functions: (1) the historical, determining the nature of art in a historical context; (2) the recreative, apprehending what the artist has succeeded in expressing in a specific work; and (3) the judicial, estimating the value of the work in relation to others.12

To be effective, this film criticism should contain interpretation and evaluation of: (1) theme of film; (2) quality of technical execution; (3) the quality and nature of the ideas in the film; (4) individual contributions in regards to acting; and (5) the relationship of the film to other works by the same filmmaker, Bobker said.13

According to Renata Adler, the only job of a critic/reviewer that really matters much is to recognize a distinguished work when it comes along and to keep it alive. This is the essence of the job. On a daily basis, in preparation for just such a work, the critic should try to keep audiences from being vulgarized, insulted, or made uncertain, she says.

Ideally and especially if he is to function in a mass journal, the film critic should be, according to

Richard Schickel, a well-informed leader of the

12Cushman, "Analysis of a Movie Critic," p. 34.

13Leo R. Bobker, Elements of Film (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1969), p. 239. 13

theoretically endless discussion between artists, commercial interests, and the audience. The first obligation of the critic is to make his own position clear, in a reasonable tone of voice and with a sense of his own limits, preju- dices and blind spots. "Sainte Beuve said the art of all criticism lay in 'just characterization' and that is impossible to do if your prime concern is showing off,"

Schickel says. He also claims that many readers and critics believe the critic to be a final arbiter of excellence.14

Kauffmann, also at one time a drama critic for The

New York Times, says "the primary duty of the critic is to

evaluate the aim of a work of art and the quality of its execution." His secondary task is "to help create an edu- cated audience for good art, an audience that will encourage the creation of still better works of art."

"The film critic who has developed taste," which

Kauffmann defines as the accumulation of instances from past experience, "brings his taste to bear on a film in the form of expectations." These expectations are the standards critics use to evaluate the aim of the work and the quality of its execution.15

l4Richard Schickel, "Movie Critic on Movie Critics," Harper's, January, 1970, pp. 98-99.

15Cushman, "Analysis of a Movie Critic," p. 31. 14

Most contemporary reviewers and critics come out of a literary or journalistic tradition, Amos Vogel says in an article in The New American Cinema. Their commitment is to

clear narratives, realism or naturalism, identifiable senti- ments with the visual serving as illustrations of an under- lying literary thesis. "This is criticism oriented toward sociology, literature and psychology, not toward the visual essence of cinema."16

A critic's role is not to guide the public to or away from films, according to Bobker in Elements of Film.

Through good criticism, he says, the audience is better equipped to view a film. The actor and the director are stimulated to agree or disagree and thus to fortify or change their approach.

Bobker said the film critic must bring to his work a special combination of elements: richness of content and style, dedication to film as an art form and an ability to communicate ideas of substance and value. He set up three tools or qualifications he deems necessary to a film critic:

(1) a thorough knowledge of the art form, (2) a belief in film as an art and (3) an understanding and appreciation of the other arts.17

l6Amos Vogel, "Thirteen Confusions," in The New American Cinema, ed. by Gregory Battcock (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967), p. 135. 17 Bobker, Elements of Film, p. 239.

Most contemporary reviewers and critics come out of a literary or journalistic tradition, Amos Vogel says in an article in The New American Cinema. Their commitment is to

A critic's role is not to guide the public to or away from films, according to Bobker in Elements of Film.

Through good criticism, he says, the audience is better equipped to view a film. The actor and the director are stimulated to agree or disagree and thus to fortify or change their approach.

(l) a thorough knowledge of the art form, (2) a belief in film as an art and (3) an understanding and appreciation of the other arts.17

l6Amos Vogel, "Thirteen Confusions," in The New American Cinema, ed. by Gregory Battcock (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967), p. 135. 17 Bobker, Elements of Film, p. 239.

Most contemporary reviewers and critics come out of a literary or journalistic tradition, Amos Vogel says in an article in The New American Cinema. Their commitment is to

A critic's role is not to guide the public to or away from films, according to Bobker in Elements of Film.

Through good criticism, he says, the audience is better equipped to view a film. The actor and the director are stimulated to agree or disagree and thus to fortify or change their approach.

Bobker said the film critic must bring to his work a special combination of elements: richness of content and

style, dedication to film as an art form and an ability to communicate ideas of substance and value. He set up three tools or qualifications he deems necessary to a film critic:

(1) a thorough knowledge of the art form, (2) a belief in film as an art and (3) an understanding and appreciation of the other arts.17

l6Amos Vogel, "Thirteen Confusions," in The New American Cinema, ed. by Gregory Battcock (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967), p. 135. 17 Bobker, Elements of Film, p. 239.

John Simon in his book Private Screenings, says a

critic is three things. He is first and foremost a teacher and secondly an artist. Third, Simon says, a critic is or should be a thinker and must have a world View which is a moral position.

In support for his views, Simon recalls the words of Oscar Wilde in an essay "The Critic as Artist." Wilde said that criticism is "a creation within a creation" and

"the critic is he who exhibits to us a work of art in a form different from that of the work itself, and the employment of a new material is a critical as well as a creative element."18

Simon also lays down what he considers a critic's responsibilities. He says a critic must recognize that there is a superficial difference between comedy and tragedy, a profound one between good and bad. But to View and review all films as anything but an art is at best trivial and at worst stupid, he says.

The ideal film critic, Simon says, must be "con- versant with cinematography, literature, acting techniques, painting and sculpture (form and composition), music, dance

(film musicals), and as many foreign languages as possible."

He concludes that the critic is responsible for raising the standard of motion pictures.

l8Simon, Private Screenings, p. 5.

The critic should do his utmost to listen to what the artist has to say. First ask the question, Is this film filmic? By this he means, Does it use the language of the motion picture? Does it build up its total effect by a composition of visual details, skilLﬁﬂJf'selected and welded together by means of editing? 9

Though film cannot be divided clearly into filmic and non- filmic, Jean Benoit-Levy says in The Literature of Cinema,

he thinks the extent to which a film is filmic is a measure of its quality and seriousness as a work of film art.

No other critic is so much beset by the division of those who see art as a source of delight and those who see it as an instrument of moral good as the film critic,

Benoit-Levy claims. The critics themselves are divided.

Some are willing to accept the role as a reporter of public entertainment whose chief aim is to make his reports easily readable, entertaining in their own right. Others argue that films are so important in propagating ideas and influ- encing thought and conduct, whether their makers intend them to do so or not, that no critic can afford to be neutral and detached in reviewing them.

Though professional film critics seldom make a public declaration of their principles, Alistair Cooke, when appointed film critic of the British Broadcasting

Corporation, wrote "A Critic's Testament."

19Jean Benoit-Levy, The Literature of the Cinema (New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1946), p. 166. 17

I declare that I am a critic trying to interest a lot of people into seeing, a few ambitious peOple into making, interesting films. My malice extends only to those whgohave a dull talent and continue to exploit it . . .

America is fortunate, Benoit—Levy says, to possess independent film critics, some of whom occasionally take the trouble to chart a course.

The critic's role is a beneficial one, to the artist as well as to the businessman, he, too should be entrusted with the task of reeducating the public so that the latter may exert an influence and a favorable one this time, on the individuals without whose help the artists cannot express themselves in this art industry.21

The Power of the Film Critic

It is perfectly true that movie peOple and journalists have long speculated about the exact degree of power critics exert on a film's reception by the national audience. There is general agreement that New York--the biggest and most influential movie market--is a review town, Benoit-Levy says. It is the port of entry for the majority of the foreign films.

This increases the need for simple information and is a source of such direct power as the important New York critics wield. Foreign films are booked elsewhere on their box office performance in New York which means that bad reviews there effectively kill their chances of being shown across the nation.

20lbid., p. 75. 21Ibid.. pp. 197—198.

22Schickel, "Movie Critic," p. 97. 18

David Slavitt in his article "Critics and Criticism" says the critic is impotent. "The critic has no influence either with the filmmakers or with the film audiences, has no suitable or adequate vocabulary with which to stand, from which to formulate a general theory of what he is trying to do or wants to say."23

Like Benoit-Levy, Slavitt says that the influential critics are only those of The New York Times, Time and

Newsweek. This influence is partly a function of circulation. He also says that reviewers on smaller papers find out what they think by reading the Sunday New York Times.

Power? No! Movie reviews don't make any difference anyway, except on art films from Europe brought in by small distributors who don't have the money for big 24 ad campaigns or the leverage to get the mass bookings.

He concludes that movie critics are widely read but ignored.

According to Pauline Kael, the movie industry and many established actors on talk shows love the idea that the public doesn't need the critics. The young filmmaker knows different, she says. Most new pictures that try to break the molds risk confusing audiences and just about all the pictures that express new social impulses or that are critical or rebellious are small—budget pictures. If

23David Slavitt, "Critics and Criticism," in Man and The Movies, ed. by W. R. Robinson (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967), p. 335. 24Ibid. 19 a few critics don't go all the way for them, Kael says,

the public doesn't hear about them in time to keep the

directors working and to keep the art of film alive.

The movie industry cannot be kept alive by pictures like 'The Odd Couple' or 'Airport'; those are the ones that don't require the help of the press (though they often get it). The audience finds its way to them with the help of the advertising.25

Dudley Nichols said that "the artist himself

desperately needs the critic because he cannot contain

him. And the people need him just as urgently because

neither can they contain him. They are blind to values without him." Nichols feels the public can in fact more

easily contain an artist because the poetic faculty is

instinctive in mankind. The critical mind, in contrast,

is based on knowledge and must be consciously trained

and developed.26

Most peOple seem to agree that, at the very best,

critics call attention to what the public may happen to

like. But what really determines cinematic success is

still word of mouth. "At best, the critics are merely

advance publicists for something that will or will not

take off on its own," Koch said.27

25Pauline Kael, "Current Cinema," New Yorker, January 23, 1971, p. 76.

26Nichols, "Death of a Critic," pp. 266-273.

27Koch, "Cruel Critics," p. 13. 20

On the contrary, Schickel says, people who don't know the first thing about the principles or functions of criticism are suddenly reading the stuff with new interest. He says this is because it is now more widely available than ever and because it is being written about a subject everyone knows something about and which is wildly fashionable--the movies.

Reviewers are thus thought to be a very powerful crowd, people whose casual smiles or sneers can make or break. Are they? Opinion is mixed and nobody seems to really know. Koch answers the question this way:

Unlike the audience of the Broadway theater, where what the critic says is indeed the name of the game, the movie public is fortunately still large and diverse enough to follow its own tastes. These tastes may often be lamentable, but it is still true that a movie like 'Airport' can do business in tens of millions of dollars despite unanimously patronizing reviews.28

Whatever conclusion is drawn, there is at least a small detectable gap between the critics and the casual, general reader at times. One movie is dismissed as sicken- ingly wholesome. A reader decides to take his family and loves the picture. The next day he may write the critic/ reviewer an indignant letter. It is perhaps unfortunate that such a gap exists, for the cosmopolitan critic in particular is in an ideal spot to provide leadership. He

28Ibid. 21 has seen more movies than most of us ever can, Koch says, and his opinions are respected by theater peOple and the publication for which he writes reaches many people.

The critic's words are his tools, or weapons, and he would be foolish and incompetent if he did not use them to the utmost of his ability. If a critic is wrong, Simon says, time eventually proves him very wrong, more quickly than the artist. Here it can rely on the enthusiastic help of the critic's colleagues, he says.

Harris Poll

Dr. Everett C. Parker, director of the Office of

Communication of the United Church of Christ, in the summer of 1969 commissioned the national public opinion- survey firm, Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., to make a determination as to critics' attitudes about their jobs and to attempt to calculate what their real influence is on the public.

This Harris survey is probably the most comprehensive examination yet made of criticism in this country, despite the relatively small size of its national sample.

The survey included interviews with a small group of thirty-six "visible" critics in four major cities, New York,

Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. A national sampling was also taken by mail of critics and editors in metropoli- tan areas and smaller cities, only some of whom were film 22 critics. About 269 critics and 122 editors completed and

returned the questionnaire.

Though only some of those surveyed were movie critics, the Harris report, titled "Critics and Criticism

in the Mass Media," can be applied to a segment of artistic criticism. The survey found that a majority of editors and critics of the arts believed that criticism published

in newspapers today has the most influence. Magazine and television criticism ranked considerably lower.

"A significant minority of the critics surveyed

feel pressures upon them to censor, restrict and slant,"

Harris reported. They imply that they are keenly aware of the danger and are successful in resisting such pressures--at least the most blatant and crude variety.29

Editors, when asked where they look for persons to fill reviewing positions, said they first look at people within their own medium or on their own staffs (journal-

ists). Less often they look for people with formal training or expertise in the arts. Half of the "visible critics" felt they had been hired for their competence as

journalists. The other half said they were hired for their competence plus a special background in the field they were to criticize. Only two of the thirty-six felt they were hired solely due to their expertise in the field.

29Robert Shayon, "Critics on the Critics," Saturday Review, March 21, 1970, p. 52.

Critic as Superstar?

Another recent Louis Harris poll revealed that of all occupations, critics are the least respected. They rank lower than sanitation workers.30

Yet, oddly enough, the Seventies has been labeled

"the era of the critic as superstar." This paradox raises many questions and points up the ambiguity of today's critic's function.

Claudia Cassidy, former Chicago Tribune music

critic, now movie critic for the new monthly magazine

Chicagoan, said, "I have always considered myself as guide

to what was going on."

"It sounds pretentious to say it, but there is no other reason for being in film criticism than to help raise tastes," Los Angeles Times movie critic Charles Champlin

says.31

Arthur Cooper, in his article "Critic as Super- star," says the most visible critic in the movie criticism field is Pauline Kael, whose reviews run on and on in the pages of The New Yorker. What makes Miss Kael such a.

marvelous critic is "her ability to convey the seeing of a movie as experience; she reacts to a film with all human energies--like a lover loving, a thinker thinking, a Virago viraging," Cooper says.

30Cooper, "Critic as Superstar," p. 96. 31Ibid. 321bid., p. 97. 24

Movie reviewers, Cooper adds, are easily the bitchiest of all critics.

Like contestants in the Roller Derby, they are constantly trying to lurch past one another in the circular race for celebrity and doctrinal primacy. Parallel columns in the Sunday Times pit John Simon against Andrew Sarris; the pages of Esquire match Peter Bogdanovich against Pauline Kael; the air- waves ripple exquisitely to devilish dust-up between Rex Reed and Judith Crist. What are the movie mavens beefing about? Big stuff, Sarris plumps for the auteur theory that a director is responsible almost entirely for a movie, Simon's response to this can barely be printed in a family newspaper. Bogdano- vich and Kael see different credits lurking behind "Citizen Kane." Rex and Judith-~well, their friends put them up to it.33

Mrs. Crist, Cooper says, is probably the most widely read movie reviewer. Formerly on NBC's "Today" show, she now reaches millions in TV Guide and New York

Magazine.

Simon, on the other hand, has become the "critic you love to hate." Cooper says that in the face of pro- nouncements such as Mrs. Crist's that "I never arrived at a film with the notion that, wow, it's an art form," Simon sees himself as the guardian of the highest standards of

Western culture. He is more of a police dog than a seeing- eye dog and his savaging of performers have made some of his victims weep. But, Cooper says, at his best he is that rare critic who can make ideas work instead of just lying

there looking like ideas.

33Ibid.

"But film is both a much newer art than any of the others and one which, as a true Gesamtkunstwerk, subsumes all the others," Simon.said in his book Movies into Film:

Film Criticism. He realizes that this newness means there

is an insufficient body of film criticism, scholarship and theory available to the aspiring critic. Because film is relatively unexplored it has the same fascination for critics that a barely discovered resort has for tourists; it becomes a fad and invites fanatical partisanship. So out of ignorance and overenthusiasm it is easy for the film critic to be or become one-sided or overzealous. To prevent this, Simon says, a critic must have experience in other arts and critical disciplines.

I consider film inferior to no art but neither do I make the dangerous assumption widely held by illiterate film critics that film is superior to all the other arts. A critic may be a lover; he must not become an idolater.34

34Simon, "Movies into Film," pp. 23-24. CHAPTER II

THE DEVELOPMENT OF FILM CRITICISM AS COMPARED

TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FILM

Movie critics deal with a distressingly familiar form, the history of which can still be encompassed by a single life span, a new and extremely accessible expressive form that fits few of the traditional definitions of art and which has, as yet, no great tradition to comfort and guide them.35

Thus, Richard Schickel expressed in 1965 what he felt was the obstacle the film critic had for decades striven to overcome and must continue to overcome even today.

In addition, he said, many who write regularly about the movies had their professionalism foisted upon them.

Few of us consciously and consistently sought to become what we are. The hope was there flickering, but since there was no clearly marked path toward attaining the goal and no formal method of preparing oneself, no sensible man allowed much hope to take up room in his thoughts. I suspect the desire simply to write, to express ourselves on some topic or another, preceded the desire to express ourselves specifically on movies.36

35Richard Schickel, Second Sight: Notes on Some Movies 1965-1970 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1965), p. 13. 36Ibid., p. 14.

26 27

Thorold Dickinson, in his book A Discovery of

Cinema, claims that film criticism has been rarely achieved.

"Just as knowledge of the long established arts is an element in education," Dickinson said, "so should the advan— tage of knowing something about and understanding cinema be included in our upbringing." He said such a potent medium deserves trained critics.

When we do not keep pace with our artists, the best in cinema goes into cold storage, waiting as La 37 Regle du Jeu which was shelved from 1939 till 1960.

How tentative and labored the growth of film criticism has been alongside the rapid expansion of the film industry itself.

The Eight-Minute Beginnings: 1900-1910

In 1894, Edison's Kinetoscope peepshow machine provided the first means of commercially exploiting the new invention of motion picture photography. Edison's success led to the setting up of other film companies.

One of the first was Vitagraph Company, founded in 1896.

The American film industry itself was officially born in 1900 when Thomas Edison put Edwin S. Porter in charge of production at the Edison studios. The first motion picture theater opened in Los Angeles two years

37Thorold Dickinson, A Discovery of Cinema (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 137. 28 later. Porter was responsible for the first important complete American film production, The Life of an American

Fireman, released in 1903.

A real-estate dealer named Harry Davis of

McKeesport, Pennsylvania, installed a movie projector in a vacant storeroom and in 1905, showed one of the screen's first efforts to tell a real story in pictures, The Great

Train Robbery. He charged five cents for admission, thus

creating the first "nickelodeon," a theater which became famous overnight. By 1907 about 5,000 nickelodeons had appeared throughout the United States.

During the earliest days of film, just prior to

1900, movies were mere fragments--brief comic bits. They were not much more than demonstrations of the invention.

Then in 1903 came The Life of an American Fireman. It ran

eight minutes. Porter next made Uncle Tom's Cabin which

lasted twelve minutes and then The Great Train Robbery

which lasted ten minutes.

But while film activity bubbled and boiled, there was little of what could be called film criticism. Almost all writing about motion pictures merely desoribed them, or discussed them in social, economic, or scientific terms.

Film trade journals, such as Views and Film Index,

began popping up around 1906. In about 1907, a paradox occurred. Criticism of specific pictures remained in a long-synopsis and brief—comment form. But, at the same 29 time, especially in film trade journals, articles were being written which addressed large critical—esthetic problems. Evidently this was because of the difficulty

in criticizing the brief items, called movies, that

flitted by rapidly in theaters. It was much easier to

discuss the phenomenon as a whole.

There was in the United States also a continuing

comparison of American films with foreign films; a theme

that began with the beginning of American criticism and constantly recurs.

To exemplify this early type of criticism, one

editor's final order as he detailed an anonymous critic

to criticize contemporary film theater and program was

"to write just what you think of them in your own words."

The critic told his readers of this policy in his first

review in The Moving Picture World on January 9, 1909.38

Lewis Jacobs, in his book The Rise of the American

Film, said that by May of 1909, Frank E. Woods of the New

York Dramatic Mirror was known as "film's movie critic"

and that "from the outset Woods impressed movie makers:

they read his column steadily, respected his opinions and

often acted upon his advice."39

38Stanley Kauffmann, ed. with Bruce Henstell, American Film Criticism: From the Beginnings to Citizen Kane (New York: Liveright, 1972), p. 19. 39 Ibid., p. 25. 30

But, according to Stanley Kauffmann,when film criticism, in any meaningful sense, was only two years old, it was already a subject of criticism. A comment appearing in the New York Dramatic Mirror on November 27,

1909 read:

A gentleman interested in the moving picture business recently advanced the argument to the writer that criticism by the press in the free manner that plays are reviewed is not entirely justified in the case of films, because they are articles of manufacture. This View, while not generally held by film manufacturers, may have occurred to some of them and it may be as well to dispose of it.40

Early American film reviewing left a good deal to be desired. American criticism, like American cinema, in its beginnings was pragmatic and antirtheoretical. Almost from the start the cinema was saddled with transcendent moral obligations that converted critiques into sermons.

Stylistic analysis was often neglected for the sake of presumed realism and social significance.

The Silent Era: 1910-1928

After suffering a temporary setback at the end of

World War I, the film industry grew rapidly and became the fifth largest industry in the United States. The star system, which later provided the American film with its most potent medium of publicity, effectively began in 1910.

4OIbid., p. 37. 31

Particularly between 1914 and 1919, the industry went through a period of rapid development and transformation.

The pattern created by the rise of the feature film still survives today, as do many of the companies formed at that time. The nickelodeon era came to an end and more luxu- rious theaters took their place.

Together with director D. W. Griffith's innova- tions, the influence exerted by Soviet and German Expres- sionist schools led to a growing interest in film technique.

The use of a written scenario became standard practice in place of improvisation on the set as longer shooting sched- ules and larger budgets were.used. The foremost genres during this period were the domestic dramas, costume dramas and spectacles. The Western developed significantly.

A landmark in the development of film criticism occurred in March, 1922. Will Hays, President Harding's postmaster general, opened the offices of the Motion

Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc., and thus created the organ of film censorship known as "The

Hays Office." Now film would be criticized, from inside the industry itself, before it ever reached the public.

The move to longer feature films in 1911 and 1912 was absolutely crucial to criticism. Not only was there more substantial work to write about, it had to be written about. The reportorial function of criticism was needed 32 since longer films played longer engagements. The evaluative functions had greater play.

At the opening of D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a

Nation at Liberty Theater in New York City on March 3,

1915, a story in The Moving Picture World said, "the

dramatic critics of all the New York daily papers attended the premiere and in almost every instance the picture was reported at length and in glowing terms." This is significant in that it demonstrates that even though films were longer and more developed, there were still as yet no specialized film critics. The dramatic critics attended films and only those deemed important.41

Now that films were longer and more substantial and the audience increasing, newspapers and magazines had to consider regular reviewing of the medium. The Nation and The New Republic began to comment on film.

At the end of World War I, motion pictures had arrived as commercialized popular art. Movie making was the fifth largest industry in the country. Several critics as well as directors and actors considered the cinema an art form, but few others had such illusions. It was, though, a highly lucrative form of popular entertainment and aimed at a mass market.

41Ibid., p. 86. 33

It was recognized that to keep stride with the rapidly growing film industry, critics singularly devoted to film were essential. ,Several critics quickly established themselves as such on the larger newspapers and magazines. Robert E. Sherwood became film critic of Life in 1920. Richard Watts, Jr. joined The New York Herald

Tribune staff in 1924. Also during the Twenties, Quinn

Martin began reviewing for the New York World and Eveyn

Gerstein's reviews appeared in the Boston Herald,.Theatre

Guild Magazine, Nation and.The New Republic.

Welford Beaton founded The Film Spectator in Holly-

wood in March, 1926. He felt that criticism was too concentrated in the East and that the film capital should have a critical journal of its own.' His goals, he said, were

"basely commercial,“ to help the industry make more money.

But this criticism and that of other contributors was reminiscent of the trade.journals.of.twenty years before, in the New York Dramatic Mirror and The Moving Picture

World, where American film criticism had begun. There was a great consciousness that the trade critic's best way to help the industry was to write the most rigorous, informed criticism that he could.. He should emphasize expertness about films and studios and picture people, without slavish- . . . 42 ness to bu81ness cr1ter1a..

421bid., p. 188.

In 1927, Harry Alan Potamkin introduced a new note in film criticism. He was one of the first serious critics born in the twentieth century; after the motion picture had become an important part of the social environment.

Movies Become Vocal: 1928-1939

The two events that most influenced film in the

Thirties occurred at the very end of the previous decade; the advent of sound, and the Wall Street Crash in 1929 and resulting Depression. The unbelievable success of The Jazz

Singer (1927) compelled other studios to experiment with talking pictures. The problems of the static camera imprisoned in its padded booth and the rudimentary inade- quacy of sound recording.devices were quickly overcome.

By 1931, 85 per cent of the theaters in America were wired for sound. The majority of the great stars such as Greta

Garbo were able to make the transition and at the end of the decade, films such as Gone With the Wind, The Wizard

of Oz and the first feature-length cartoon Snow White and

the Seven Dwarfs proved Hollywood to be at the height of

its powers.

About midsummer of 1933, motion pictures began to feel the pinch of the Depression. Some 5,000 of the 16,000 movie theaters had closed. It was not until the end of the decade, apart from a temporary improvement in 1937, that

35 the industry as a whole could be said to have attained a sound financial footing.

As a result of the arrival of sound with its high cost and the country's economic slump, the independent companies disappeared or merged into eight major studios:

M-G-M, Paramount, Twentieth-Century Fox, Warner Brothers,

RKO, Universal, Columbia, and United Artists. The

Thirties also saw the development of a new Technicolor process that could be used for production on a large scale.

When the British,.who were making disturbingly good films during this time (Which American critics glee- fully seized on for comparative criticisms), confronted

Hollywood by putting a quota on foreign films, which demanded that one of every five distributed in Britain be made there, M-G-M answered by establishing British studios in 1937. On this occurrence, Variety, a trade magazine, commented with "a nice nationalism appreciated by the film colony" that the best British pictures were being made in

Hollywood (Cavalcade, Mrs. Miniver).43

But in 1929, after.little more than a year of talkies, Variety also wryly reported, "Sound didn't do any more to the industry than turn it upside down, shake the entire bag of tricks from its pocket and advance Warner

43Beth Day, This Was Hollywood: An Affectionate History of Filmland's Golden Years (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960), p. 227. 36

Brothers from the last place (among the film companies) to

first in the league."44

William Troy said on February 8, 1933, in Nation

that movie criticism, though too new to have set up any

really solid standards or to have found for itself an

adequate vocabulary, had already managed to establish in

a certain section of the public mind "a body of priori

judgments which can only be described as cant."

Cant nowadays means the adoption of some opinion or point of View whose implications of superiority depend largely on its being at variance with the popular (or should we say vulgar?) point of View. Now the essence of current movie cant is fortunately summed up in a single definitive and invariable dictum: that nothing worth while ever has or will come out of Hollywood.45

But, while some criticized the move to sound,

others realized the great possibilities and promise that

its advent carried. For example, the Marx Brothers arrived with large theater reputations and with the intense inter-

est of a sophisticated group of critics such as Gilbert

Seldes (The Seven Lively Arts, The Public Arts).

Several other critics became popular during the

Thirties. .Otis Ferguson of The.New Republic (1934-1941),

Howard Barnes of The New York Herald Tribune (1936-1951),

44Arthur Knight, The Liveliest Art; A Panoramic History of the Movies (New York: New American Library, 1957), p. 147.

45William Troy, "Movie Cant and Criticism," Nation, February 8, 1933, p. 157. 37

Andre Sennwald of The New York Times (1934-1936) and

Frank S. Nugent of The New York Times (1936-1940) became

known as film critics.

Leda V. Bauer said right after the advent of the talkies that it was a curious commentary on films that at that point in the development of film criticism, the lower the newspaper in the literary scale, the greater the importance attached by picture producers to its opinions.

Rhymed reviews are considered very elegant in these circles and the cheapest of wise-cracks pass for wit. Save for pictures unendurable even to the lowest intelligence, praise is spread in superlatives. The worst are passed over noncommitally, the critics filling their space largely with the plot of the story, for the most part in unconscious colloquial- isms, though several have created an entirely new vocabulary for the subject, unintelligible save to addicts of this special literature.46

The better type of newspaper usually contented itself with a picture reviewer who could be inoffensive and meaningless in words of two or more syllables, she added.

What exceptions there are seem to be mainly in the weekly, humorous field. An occasional Robert Sherwood or Charles Brackett here relieves himself of certain keen, if facetious, observations on the current screen fare. But save in the instance of two well-known sheets, the trade and fan magazines, naturally enough, expend themselves in indiscriminate admiration of their advertisers, or print verbatim the material sent them by the publicity men of the picture companies. And the journals of opinion, only now beginning to exhibit

46Leda V. Bauer, "Movie Critics," American Mercury, January, 1929, p. 73. 38

an interest in the vulgarest of the arts, have as yet no departments committed to screen criticism.4

One of Sennwald's columns on September 29, 1935 demonstrated public thoughts on movie critics during the

Thirties and one critic's reaction. Sennwald related that he had suffered a good deal of "epistolary abuse" because of certain comments he had made of Fredric March's work.

He included what two correspondents had written in the course of their assaults.

One of them declared that "when a critic finds that he has become nothing but a critic in the true sense of the word, he had better hunt himself another job, because he might do a great deal of damage unknowingly."

The other wrote: "It is only fair to say that you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. You, however, have both Mr. March and his firm adherents at a disadvantage since our Opinion can't be flaunted in the widely read New York Times."48

Sennwald said these were reasonable points of View and he himself had wondered at the temperance which most readers adopt when they expressed dissatisfaction with his opinions. Actors, of course, he said had always been bitter at the injustice which.permits them no opportunity

47Ibid., pp. 73-74.

48New York Times, September 29, 1935, sec. X,

39 to defend themselves against newspaper reviewers. "The difficulty is that when a reviewer sweetens his opinion with mercy and corrupts his point of view with an abstract yearning for justice, he quickly ceases to be helpful as a cinema guide," he said.

"The producer and the actor have no claim on the reviewer," Sennwald added, "as he addresses himself to the

film-going public and he presents, in theory, a body of opinion that enables the film-goer to get the maximum of "49 entertainment value for his money.

On January 22, 1938, in an article in The New York

Times, it was reported that in a speech before the National

Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Mortimer J. Adler,

University of Chicago professor of philoSOphy of law, said that "in general criticisms are on as low a level as the public taste itself." He particularly objected to the

"sneering type" of critics.50

Dr. Russell Porter, associate director of Columbia

University Extension, agreed "that there are too many critics who actually hate movies."

Alistair Cooke, British radio film critic, said

"the irony of pOpular criticism today is that only high-

brow critics, whose papers-carry no advertising, can say

49Ibid.

50New York Times, January 22, 1938, p. 17.

40 what they like." He added that if radio was ever free of commercial shackles it would provide an unfettered outlet for movie criticism.

That same year on August 28, another New York Times

article labeled the movie critic "the Cinderella in the kitchen, the muses' illegitimate godchild."

The motion picture reviewer (critic is really too good for him) is looked down upon by the literati, is dis- trusted by the proletariat as a tool of the capitalist press and is tolerated with the immense skepticism by the admission-paying public, at whose ungrateful shrine even the least conscientious picture reviewer has often been tempted to commit professional hara-kiri. . . . But what ever you may say of the film critic, his function is not that of another barker to confuse and entice the wavering public into every passing side- show; let this one shred of dignity at least cling to his diffident form.51

In the article aptly named "The Case of the

Critics," Otis Ferguson said the truth of the matter was

that when he became a critic in 1933, it wasn't a very good time for movies. "On the level of the lofty brow you weren't allowed to notice anything unless it came from abroad or had been made in the nostalgic days of the silent film . . ." he said.

It was a pretty tough time, with that perennial Junior, Richard Watts, trying to be Mr. Watts of the Dramah Patch and William Troy trying to be William Troy, and the whole thing boiling down to who had read the most books in a foreign language, could refer thereto and quote therefrom. There was

Sllbid., August 28, 1938, sec. IV, p. 3. 41

a great rush for words like regisseur montage and almost no appreciation of the movies that people after all see . . .52

Ferguson said that some of the stuffier attitudes disappeared from movie reviewing and there was a tendency to take films for what they were and with respect. But,

there was still no atmosphere for breeding critics. "I wonder if it isn't the movies themselves who are respon-

sible . . . But the movies themselves are not interested

in having able criticism. They are suspicious of it and

shy violently when its presence is suspected," Ferguson

said.

Hollywood has been able to insist that the whole of its public is feeble enough in the head to admire practically anything on celluloid so long as nobody meanly spoils the show by suggesting that as an actor Errol Flynn is about as expressive as the leg of a chair, or that even a million dollars can be wrong and not art. Consequently film criticism is obediently dull and uninformative, and surely unworthy of so lively and imminent a subject. We started out by paying the movies no respect, and now we lag behind 'them and are taken into camp. The respect is now there but it is a poor thing and it is paid rather to the wishes of the men who merely sell them for profit rather than to the movies themselves.53

Under Citizen Kane's Shadow: The Forties

The Forties were under the shadow of Orson Welles'

film Citizen Kane (1941). Welles made Kane, a press

52Otis Ferguson, "The Case of the Critics," New Republic, February 2, 1942, p. 148. 53Ibid.

42 magnate, a man who was all things to all men. The film

itself inspired many directors that followed. Camera work with deep-focus compositions, flashbacks and sombre

lighting became the rule rather than the exceptions they

had previously been.

In the late Forties, there was an attempt to bring

back dwindling audiences by moving "from the more pre-

dictable escapist plots toward stories which reflected

attitudes and problems of the postwar society." This

social realist trend was further developed in the Fifties

and later came to encompass a wider spectrum of contro— versial subject matter, such as drugs.

Along with this push for audience development

came hard-hitting attacks on film critics.

The average cinemogul regards critics as either free press agents or costly saboteurs. Even when a bad picture is a box-office hit, the moviemaker resents critics who called it bad. M-G-M is particularly touchy about critics who refuse to love its products. (In Manhattan, M-G-M likes to avoid projection-room screenings and show films to reviewers at "sneak previews" in regular theaters. The tactic seems designed to drown out critical judgment with loud sounds of audience approval).54

In 1946, Eileen Arnot Robertson was dropped as

BBC's film critic after M—G-M charged that her reviews

were "unnecessarily harmful." Time magazine reported in

its December 13, 1948 issue that she sued for libel after

54"Criticism Hurts," Time, December 13, 1948, p. 102. 43

M-G-M sent its letter of complaint to BBC. She collected

$6,000 for damages but in 1948 a higher court said the letter was "fair comment innocent of malice" and reversed the decision. London's Critics Circle began raising funds for a last appeal to the House of Lords.

Near the end of World War II, Wolcott Gibbs, a

New Yorker drama critic, was forced to write movie reviews

for ten months but he vowed he would never do so again:

It is my indignant opinion that 90 per cent of the moving pictures exhibited in America are so vulgar, witless and dull that it is preposterous to write about them in any publication not intended to be read while chewing gum. There are so few exceptions that obviously no one could hope to find regular employment writing about them, and consequently they can be ignored here.55

Television Invades Hollywood: The Fifties

In the 1950's, the American film industry saw its first consistent drop in cinema attendance since the Depres- sion as a result of the impact of television. After nearly fifty years of popularity, cinema sank to second place in the mass audience's scheme of things. Admissions dropped from a high of close to 90,000,000 a week to a low of

15,000,000.

The industry felt that if the "talkies" had saved movies during the Depression, the new Cinerama and 3-D

55Hollis Alpert, "Film: The Bright Kingdom," Saturday Review World, August 10, 1974, p. 98.

44 photography would work now, and though they proved too

inflexible to be generally acceptable, the success of

Cinerama showed a ready audience for the sort of spectac- ular entertainment that TV could not provide. In 1953,

Twentieth Century-Fox introduced CinemaScope.

These and other developments during the decade brought about a relatively stimulating, if somewhat uncertain creative climate, Cowie says, although in retrospect "an aura of melancholy hangs over the memory of Hollywood at the beginning of the Fifties." The

McCarthism of the decade caused a number of distinguished

filmmakers to be blacklisted. "In 1952," Cowie says,

"Chaplin delivered his valedictory film Limelight, a sad

but moving testament and shortly afterwards quit America

for good."56

Of the active established directors of the early

Fifties, John Ford, William Wyler, George Stephens, Billy

Wilder, and John Huston perhaps were the five held in the greatest contemporary esteem.

In the mid-1950's the auteur theory, European-

based but extremely influential in America, became a kind

of militant rallying cry, particularly among younger

critics. Auteur criticism, which is a variant of romantic

56Peter Cowie, ed., A Concise History of The Cinema (London: The Tantivy Press, 1971), p. 33.

theory where the artist receives greater emphasis than the work of art, offended older established critics. Movies

should be judged on the basis of "how" and not "what."

They were particularly hostile to message movies "boring but well intended" in desire for social reform. Film directors ignored by "serious" critics became popular, 57 among them Hitchcock, Hawks, and Ray.

In 1958, when Agee on Film waS'published, there

was a noticeable change in general attitudes toward

serious film criticism. To be a serious critic in the post-agee age was to be culturally apposite. Earlier,

there was something of cultural heroism in the act, in

the United States at least.

In the early days of the motion picture, when film was oriented in a large part toward entertainment, critics

in the daily newspapers and periodicals reviewed new films as they might review a musical comedy or an ice show at

Madison Square Garden. Their key concern was whether the film was entertaining. Film critics on major newspapers--

Kate Cameron, Rose Pelswick and Bosley Crowther--were by and large ex-reporters commissioned by their publications

to provide the readers with a guide to good and enter-

taining film viewing.

7Louis D. Giannetti, Understanding Movies (Engle- wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972), p. 198.

As film techniques became more complex and films more intellectually demanding, the need for serious and thoughtful criticism was felt. Critics who could say the

latest Doris Day film was "funny and delightful" had difficulty explaining the character and quality of a complex film like Bergman's The Seventh Seal.

The Influx of Independents and Youth: The Sixties

By the Sixties, a new pattern emerged in film production. Television's invasion of Hollywood had been overcome and though audiences were still dwindling, they did so at a greatly reduced rate. The new independent producer, many New York-based, replaced the old-style

Hollywood producer. Many young directors moved into film

from television, among them Arthur Penn, John Franken- heimer, and Sidney Lumet.

Anarchy of the most stimulating sort reigned in movie criticism in the Sixties, Schickel said in his book

Second Sight. The basic task of the reviewer was, in

effect, to make up his terms as he went along.

In 1965, the average quality of studio-made Ameri- can films had fallen off. Movies lost the knack for the

kind of fast-moving action, adventure and comedy film on which the prosperity of the movie industry had been based.

Hollywood was still panicked by television, the loss of 47

theater chains, and inutility of old factory production methods. Richard Schickel said that at this point the truly memorable, influential films were coming from abroad.

"The films never regained the 'mature audience'

they lost in the Fifties to television and other attrac-

tions," Russel Nye said in The Unembarrassed Muse. An

American Research Bureau report in 1969 on Detroit's movie-going audience showed that the greatest potential

audience for films lay in the twelve to thirty plus age

group, especially in its sixteen to twenty-two segment,

Nye said.58

Similar nationwide surveys indicated that 52 per cent of the movie audience was under the age of twenty;

72 per cent under thirty. Successful theater managers,

therefore, tended to pay little attention to the movie

critics, who in their estimation were viewing films in

terms of an older, inconsequential audience. "The true

test of a big picture," remarked Martin Shafer of Detroit

Suburban Theatres, Inc., "is its gross. Our job is to

determine what the public wants."59

58Russel Nye, The Unembarrassed Muse: The Popular Arts in America (New York: The Dial Press, 1970), p. 386.

59Ibid.

Since Hell's Angels outdrew by more than four times

a picture unanimously acclaimed by the critics, Lion in

Winter, in Shafer's theaters in 1969, his attitude is explainable.

Mike Nichol's The Graduate (1967) was in many ways

a watershed in American cinematic history. The first

financially successful of the "personal" films--films in which the director seeks to express a personal viewpoint of a given aspect of our society--The Graduate marked the

advent of the New American film.

Hollywood's Decline?: The Seventies

If the movies of the 1970's have proved anything,

it is that no single formula can guarantee success. The runaway top grosser in 1970 was Airport, an old-fashioned melodrama with old-fashioned thrills. Yet at the same time the tear—jerker Love Story and an irreverent antiwar

comedy M*A*S*H proved to be big moneymakers. Recently admissions have climbed back from the 15,000,000 of the

Fifties to 20,000,000 with films such as The Godfather,

The Exorcist and The Sting aiding the popular resurgence.

One omnipresent problem in the Seventies has been the fact that several of the major studios are in financial

trouble. M-G—M sold its entire collection of props, minia-

tures, furnishings, and costumes at auction. It also sold

its fabled Lot Three with Tarzan's jungle. At Twentieth 49

Century-Fox, Richard D. Zanuck, studio head, was ousted partly because of his studio's elaborate productions which were losing money. Warner Brothers as well as

M-G-M gave up their costly headquarters in New York City.

Most film criticism has seen little definable positive change, especially since the Sixties. It is still almost exclusively devoted to discussions of

"content." Very few critics come to grips with the basic elements of film--images and movement.

One reason why the bulk of movie criticism is considered bad or misleading is that most critics never go beyond the "content" of a film, said Louis D. Giannetti in Understanding Movies. Shallow commentaries of this

sort do not tell the reader specifically why and how a movie succeeds (or fails). They merely provide a general notion of what a film is about.60 Giannetti says that superficial judgments are being made all the time by otherwise cultivated and intelligent people. A film by

Alfred Hitchcock is dismissed as a "mere thriller," despite the fact that Hamlet on this level of criticism could be similarly discussed. On the other hand, Giannetti says, critics often praise a didactic potboiler like Stanley

Kramer's Ship of Fools because of its "important" theme,

although it is a dull and uninspired film.

6OGiannetti, Understanding Movies, p. 45.

The New York Times plays it safe these days.

Should a new film be ill-treated by its daily reviewer, another critical analysis will appear in its Sunday drama section, this time raising the same film to the level of a classic, Hollis Alpert claimed in a Saturday Review World

61 article, "Film: The Bright Kingdom."

Though the earliest movie reviews come down to us as simple descriptions of an event, they are as such inval- uable to film historians. The writing is usually sparse and phlegmatic without being unduly perceptive or analytical. The subsequent evolution of capsule journalism into "a branch of belles lettres" has been an arduous process. Always the artist has been far ahead of the critic. The inventors and innovators of the medium as

Lumiere, Edison, Porter, Griffith, and Eisenstein made their contributions before a critical vocabulary even existed to describe them. Why did criticism lag behind?

Andrew Sarris lists three reasons he sees as probable answers to this question: (1) Cinema, as a visual art, is difficult to describe in words (only partly visual, partly exists in time-~requires renaissance man to encompass all its aspects); (2) the oversupply of movies has strained the eyesight of conscientious film scholars for

61Alpert, Bright Kingdom, p. 100.

51 more than sixty years; (3) and there has been little time to recollect screen experience in tranquility.62

Pauline Kael in Movies, the Desparate Art, said

that the film critic in the United States now is in a curious position: the greater his interest in the film medium, the more enraged and negative he is likely to sound.

He can assert his disgust, and he can find ample material to document it, but then what? He can haunt film societies and reexperience and reassess the classics, but the result is an increased burden of disgust; the directions indicated in those classics are not the directions Hollywood took.63

62Andrew Sarris, "Film Criticism-from Blurbs to Belles Lettres" in The New American Cinema, ed. by Gregory Battcock (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967), p. 5.

63Pauline Kael, "Movies, The Desperate Art," in Film: Readings in the Mass Media, ed. by Allen and Linda Kirschner (New York: The Odyssey Press, 1971), p. 213. PART II

A STUDY OF PRESENT DAY NEWSPAPER

FILM CRITICS CHAPTER I I I

METHODOLOGY

From information collected in Part I of this

thesis, it is evident that little reliaBle, representative

study and observation has been spent in determining the

newspaper movie critic's role and influence on readers.

(Throughout the remainder of this thesis when the term

newspaper movie critic is used, it will refer to both

critic and reviewer.)

Much of what is said about these professionals has

been conjecture and what others have candidly observed by

watching, reading, and conversing with only a small number

of them. It is true that a newspaper movie critic is a

newsman. His review is most often considered a piece of

news where speed, tOpicality and fact are the strong points.

But it is untrue that this leads him to make snap judgments

and that his reviews merely designate what films are avail-

able to readers, "as the 'Where to Dine' listings do for

food."64

64Judith Crist, "Ask me no questions and I'll tell you. . ." in Favorite Movies: Critic's Choice, ed. by Philip

Nobile (New York: .Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973), p. 196.

53 54

This study was intended to either disprove this conjecture or to give it a substantial basis for further consideration. It was begun with the establishment of several hypotheses as a basis from which (1) questions could be derived for a survey of newspaper critics and

(2) information from published literature could be gathered for support or contradiction. These are:

(1) Most newspaper film critics feel they have some

influence on their readers.

(2) Most newspaper movie critics, particularly those

working full-time, have some training or education

in film.

(3) Most neWSpaper movie critics have a journalistic

background.

(4) Most newspaper film critics have held another

position on the paper prior to assuming their

present reviewing position.

(5) Most neWSpaper film critics hold another position

on the paper in addition to reviewing.

(6) Most newspaper movie critics are not mere reporters

of their likes and dislikes, as many magazine

critics have charged, but they also try to show a

film in its historical perspective and give readers

an insight into their views.

(7) Most newspaper film critics consider themselves as

critics. Those who don't either feel there is 55

little difference between the terms critic and

reviewer or that neither term provides a satisfac-

tory description of their jobs.

(8) Most newspaper film critics work for papers in

cities of 50,000 and over.

The instrument used in the study was a mail questionnaire with seventy-one items divided into five segments.

In Section A, the questions were designed to determine some basic facts about the individual respondent, such as his college major, other newspaper positions he had held or now holds, years working as a newspaper critic on his present publication, and film training.

Section B was designed to solicit information about a newspaper movie critic's job such as the number of films viewed weekly, preparation for viewing a movie, deadline pressures, and problems caused by others editing a review.

Section C concerned itself with the critic's knowledge of his readers and the responses he received from them, through letters, phone calls, or in person.

Section D was made up of general questions for the field, such as the goal of film as a medium, the definition of the terms, critic, reviewer, and criticism, and the

respondents' top ten all-time favorite films.

Section E was concerned with demographic variables such as age, education, and income. A copy of the question— naire is in the Appendix. 56

The questionnaire was sent to a randomly selected sample of newspaper movie critics. To compile a list of current newspaper critics, The 1974 Editor and Publisher

Yearbook was scanned state by state and all those persons listed as motion picture, amusement and entertainment editors and managers were recorded. There were 322 labeled as motion picture editors or managers and 174 listed as entertainment or amusement editors and managers.

Many of the motion picture editors were also listed as amusement or entertainment editors. It was supposed that some newspapers include the movie critic under this latter title. Responses to the questionnaire showed this to be so.

Random sampling was selected as the appropriate probability sampling procedure to use in the study. This gives each combination of persons an equal chance to be

included. A random sample of 100 critics from around the

United States was drawn from index cards containing the

list of names taken from The 1974 Editor and Publisher

Yearbook.

The number ten was chosen from a table of random numbers. The index cards with the names were shuffled three times. Then, starting with the tenth critic listed, every fourth name was drawn from the first sampling wave of 100. 57

For a preliminary test of the questionnaire's first draft, several journalism students and professors at

Michigan State University were given the questionnaire and asked to evaluate it as if they themselves were critics.

After consulting with this group, the questionnaire was revised to correct hard-to-answer questions or those not easily understood and any other evident mistakes that might hamper the critic in answering the questionnaire.

The revised questionnaire was sent on January 19,

1975, to the first wave of 100 critics. This first wave would either serve as a pretest (if those returned first showed untold problems) or as a substantial part of the survey. It was opted to first determine if this wave yielded reliable and complete enough information that would be suitable for tabulation. If so, these returned questionnaires would be slotted in the survey rather than cast aside as merely pretest material. This procedure was used to facilitate a quicker completion of the survey and one that would be less costly.

In addition to the questionnaire, a letter of transmittal soliciting the critics' c00peration and giving the purpose of the survey was sent. Also as an inducement for those surveyed to reply, a self-addressed stamped envelope was enclosed.

No untold problems were evident among the first questionnaires returned, so the first wave was used as substantial, valid survey material. 58

Two weeks later the researcher shuffled the index cards again, and started with the tenth name, every fourth critic was chosen for a second wave of fifty, skipping those sent a questionnaire in the first wave.

When daily returns dwindled, a second questionnaire was sent to the 100 of the 150 critics that had not responded. Again a letter was drafted, this time as a

"reminder" that their response was essential. This letter accompanied the copy of the original questionnaire.

The sample of 150 was chosen as large enough to avoid intolerable sampling error. It was also selected to yield statistically representative and significant results in all the proposed tabulations, but not to prove to be so large as to retard the project or incur unnecessary expense.

CHAPTER IV

TABULATION OF RESPONSES

In the previous chapter, the methodology of the

study and the hypotheses on which it was based were dis- closed. Here the tabulated survey results will be given.

Then concrete findings, in relation to the hypotheses, can be determined.

Seventy-six critics or slightly over 50 per cent of those surveyed responded to the questionnaire. They did

so in one of two ways; either by returning the completed questionnaire or by replying that there was no longer a

critic on their respective newspapers. Several papers had decided to dispense with movie reviews since The 1974

Editor and Publisher Yearbook had been printed; ‘Many movie

houses had closed during 1974, and some newspapers no

longer had a need for a film critic.

Two graphs in the Appendix compare the percentage

of the questionnaire respondents to the non-respondents,

in relation to their city's population. Seventy-four

critics did not reply to the questionnaire.

59 60

Section A

The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to examining each question in the order and section it appeared in the survey.

Of the fifty-six respondents who completed the questionnaire, only 12.5 per cent said they were full- time critics.

The forty-nine respondents who reported that they are not full-time critics were asked two additional questions:

How much of your normal work week is spent on film

criticism?

What other newspaper jobs do you have in addition to

that of film critic?

To the first question, 65.3 per cent responded that they spend less than ten hours a week on film criticism. About

20 per cent said they spend between ten to twenty hours a week. One responded that he spends over thirty hours a week in this part-time capacity.

Concerning the second question, 73.4 per cent of the part-time critics said they hold a combination of jobs.

For many, this additional position is something other than a second facet of criticism. It is a news, a women's department and/or a sports reporting job. Some 6.1 per cent said they were reporters in addition to their job as 61 a part-time movie critic. About 10.2 per cent said they were critics of a second art form as well as a part-time reporter. Only 8.1 per cent hold an additional job in just the field of artistic criticism.

Part- and full-time film critics were asked how many years they had held their present position as a newspaper motion picture critic. The table below shows their response.

Table 1. Years newspaper film critics had held present position.

Range of Time ‘ Frequency

Less than 1 year ...... 8.1% l to 3 years ...... 39.2 4 to 6 years ...... 21.4 7 to 10 years ...... 10.7 Over 10 years ...... 16.0

Are you the only movie critic published in your paper?

The response was fairly close, with those answering that there were other film critics on their paper having the advantage. About 58.9 per cent said they were not the only film critic published in their newspaper. Sur— prisingly, this includes four of the seven full-time movie critics. Forty-one per cent of the respondents said they were the only motion picture critic writing for their respective papers. 62

Those thirty-three who replied that they were not the only critic published in their newspaper were asked to designate the position held by other part-time critics published there. The majority, 48.4 per cent, of these thirty-three answered the category, other staff members.

About 15 per cent said syndicated and wire service columnists complete the space given to movie reviews. Only

6 per cent said their newspapers used both additional reviews by staff members and by wire service columnists and 3 per cent replied in the category other. Some 27.2 per cent did not designate the additional reviewers' position.

Next, film critics were asked whether they had held another position on the newspaper prior to their present one as a movie critic. If so, what was this position?

Twenty-five per cent of the responding critics said they had not held a previous position on the newspaper. But the vast majority, 75 per cent, said they had held another newspaper job before movie reviewing. No particular position, though, showed itself an extremely large breeding ground for critics. (See table 2.)

Have you written any other kinds of artistic reviews?

Eighty-nine per cent said they had written other types of reviews. Only 10.7 per cent had not. This some

89 per cent also said they had written reviews in several rather than just one other category. In the questionnaire, 63

Table 2. Film critics' previous experience on present newspaper.

Newspaper Positions Frequency

News ...... 28.5% Sports ...... 7.1 Editing ...... 16.6 Advertising ...... 2.3 News and editing ...... 21.4 Other ...... 23.8

they were given eight artistic categories and were asked to check those in which they had reviewed. One critic checked as many as seven of the eight categories and two checked

all eight categories. Five said they had written six dif-

ferent kinds of reviews and six respondents said they had written reviews in five areas of the arts. There were nine

critics in each division of those who had experienced writing reviews in four, three, two and one other artistic

category.

A vast majority of the motion picture critics

listed in The 1974 Editor and Publisher Yearbook, the

reference for the survey sample, were concurrently listed

as a theater editor. This double listing was given credi-

bility by the respondents' lists of other artistic areas

in which they had written reviews. The largest number,

82 per cent of the respondents, said they had written

theater reviews. Forty-six per cent checked the rock 64 category and the same number.designated that they had done reviews of television and radio programs. The category with the lowest number was ballet, in which only 20 per cent of the critics had reviewing experience. Classical music, jazz and folk had 26 per cent, 34 per cent and

42 per cent, respectively. Thirty-six per cent said they had done reviewing in a few other unmentioned categories such as art, books and night club acts.

The critics were asked if they had had any courses, seminars or other kinds of training in film. This question will later be significantly related toother answers by the respondents, to help establish the most recommended course of action for someone interested in working profes- sionally as a film critic. The percentages were very close in relation to whether the responding critics had been trained in film. Those replying yes, 53.5 per cent, slightly outweighed the no's with 46.4 per cent.

What type of training had this 53.5 per cent had?

Table 3 shows seven categories of training and the percentage of the respondents who had been involved in each.

The largest percentage of the respondents with prior training said they had taken a variety of film study classes and had done a good deal of independent study.

Those who checked the third, fourth, fifth or sixth categories were asked to be more specific about their work in the category. Respondents who said they had taken classes 65

Table 3. Number of critics having had specific film training.

Frequency

Classes in Film History ...... 10.0% Classes in Film Production ...... 6.6 Classes on Specific Directors ...... 0.0 Independent Study ...... 16.6

Film Festivals 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0.0

other C O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O I O O 13.3 Any Combination of the First Four Categories . . 53.3

on specific directors, mentioned having studied Ingmar

Bergman, Luis Bunuel, Howard Hawks, John Ford, George

Cukor, Frank Capra, and Yasujiro Ozu. In the independent study category, critics said that they had done a variety of work including reading, film making, collecting of films, studying at the National Critics Institute and working in movie theaters. Film festivals visited by the respondents included ones in San Francisco, New York and

Los Angeles. Film making was the main entry under the other category.

The 46.4 per cent who said no to having had any film training were asked if they felt such training would be beneficial to their job. Some 38.5 per cent chose the answer, of some value, which covers a large area of possibilities. One critic wrote in the words very little.

About 23 per cent answered that such training was very valuable, 19.2 per cent said it was valuable, and 66

11.5 per cent claimed that it had no value at all. Two critics did not answer. A couple of additional comments were made by those in the of some value group. One said that training sometimes leads to reviews written for a film technician and not the general public; a legitimate complaint which all critics must be aware or beware of.

The seventh question in Section A was concerned with whether those who attended college had majored in film. Only 3.5 per cent of the fifty-four critics who had attended college had majored in film, while 94.6 per cent had not. This 94.6 per cent were asked what their major had been in an effort to see if their major could be related at all to their present job.

Table 4. Critics' majors in college.

College Majors Frequency

Journalism ...... 31.5% Drama ...... 5.6 Music ...... 1.9 Political Science ...... 3.7 English ...... 14 8 Other ...... 42 6

Those in the other category, primarily, had had double majors. Several had both English and journalism and a couple, English and drama. Other combinations included journalism and fine arts, music education and humanities, 67

anthropology and journalism, psychology and theater, and

political science and journalism. The majority of these were connected with the arts, literature and journalism, which signifies that these critics had some background

that might aid them or qualify them for their job as a motion picture critic. Any of these majors might lead

to an understanding of some of the many facets of film.

Only those with a political science background might be at a slight disadvantage in a reviewing posi-

tion, especially without some kind of film training. Of

the two political science majors, one had not had any

training in film and said he did not feel it would be

beneficial to him at all. He also said he felt he had

little influence on his readers and recommended a liberal

arts education to prospective film critics. Both points

seem significant. The other political science major,

unlike the first, was a full-time critic and said he had

done independent study by working in many capacities in

theater business. He said he felt he had moderate influ-

ence on his readers. He recommended a liberal arts

education and wide reading as preparation for film critics.

Have you ever been associated with the production of a

play, musical or film?

About 37.5 per cent of the critics had never been

associated with such a production, while 62.5 per cent had. 68

The table below shows the type of work this 62.5 per cent had done.

Table 5. Film critics' performance, directing, and/or production experience.

Areas of Experience Frequency

Acting ...... 40.0% Production Staff ...... 8 6 Directing ...... 5.7 Other ...... 20.0 Combination of Areas ...... 22.9

Those critics who had been associated with a pro— duction were also asked if they were currently associated with a play, musical and/or movie and, if so, what they were doing. Twenty-six said they were not currently associated with any production. Nine were associated with a musical, play and/or film at the time of the survey; three were acting, one was working in production, one in directing, and four were working in other capacities such as script writing.

Did you ever consider pursuing a career in drama and/or

film"

About 54 per cent of the total respondents said they had not considered a career in drama or films, but a rather large number, 46.4 per cent, said they had considered such a career. It can be assumed by examining 69

these percentages that a few of those who had previously worked on a production had decided against pursuing drama

and film as a career.

Those who said they had considered such a career

were asked what had changed their mind, if anything. Nine

said their reason was monetary, one said it concerned

talent, ten had other reasons such as deciding too late

in life. In one case a hearing loss was the cause. But,

seven or 12.5 per cent of the fifty-six respondents said

that nothing had changed their mind and they were still

pursuing this career while continuing their reviewing

position.

The last two questions in the survey's first

section asked what term the respondents felt best described

their job and what title their newspaper used in their by-

line, primarily to see if there was any correlation between

the two. Table 6 shows the results of both questions.

About 18 per cent of the responses included in the other category for by-line labels was none or no label.

Most newspapers seem to avoid using either the title critic or reviewer in labeling their motion picture writers or of using any title at all. One respondent said that his news— paper as a whole does not use titles under by-lines. Also, since only 12.5 per cent of the respondents are full-time motion picture writers, it is possible that newspapers View 70

Table 6. Comparison of percentages of critics' responses to terms describing their actual position and the label under their by-line.

R-R\\\\\\\\\\X\l 3 2 % Reviewer ...... E] 5%

. . k\\\\\\\\\\V 26% Critic ...... [:1 9%

W 41% Other . . . . .

r 1 78%

Critics' description By-line E3353 of their position E::::] label

the title critic or reviewer inadequate to describe the complete functions of the other 87.5 per cent of the respondents.

About 5.3 per cent more of the respondents called themselves reviewers than critics, but only little more than half, 58.9 per cent, think of themselves as either one or the other, in their present position. This also correlates with the fact that 87.5 per cent are not full- time writers on film. Some of the other terms they used to describe their position, such as editor or general reporter, reflected this. 71

Section B

The second section of the questionnaire was designed to find out more about a critic's job-~what he actually does.

How many films do you review a week, on the average?

Table 7. Number of films critics reviewed a week.

No. of Films Viewed Frequency

1 a week ...... 39.3% 2 a week ...... 8.9 3 a week ...... p...... 16.1 4 a week ...... 19.6 More than 5 a week ...... 5.4

How often do you write film reviews for your newspaper?

Table 8. Number of reviews critics wrote a week.

No. of Reviews Frequency

Less than 1 a week ...... 41.1% 1 a week ...... 21.4 2 a week ...... 14.3 3 or more a week ...... 21.4

The third and fourth questions in this section deal with preparation for viewing a movie. The critics were asked how they prepared and how much time they spent doing so. The largest percentage, 51.8 per cent, replied that 72 they had done a combination of things in preparation for viewing a movie, including reading about the director, reading publicity sheets on the film and reading other reviews of the movie. About 32 per cent said they relied on other things for preparation, such as checking a brief synopsis of the movie, visiting the production sets and reading the book or play on which the movie is based.

Some 1.8 per cent said that in preparation they had read about the director, 3.6 per cent had read publicity sheets, and 5.4 per cent had read other reviews. About 5 per cent of the respondents omitted the question, probably meaning they do not prepare for viewing a movie. The next question concerning the time critics spent preparing revealed that a definite number of current newspaper film critics do not prepare for viewing a film.. Some 18 per cent said they did not Spend time preparing. Forty-one per cent had spent less than an hour and.about 20 per cent had spent an hour.

This means that an extremely large percentage of the respondents, 79 per cent, had spent an hour or less on preparation. .Of the remaining.21 per cent, 10.7 per cent omitted the question, 7.1 per cent and 3.1 per cent had spent two to three hours or more than three hours, respectively.

The fifty-six respondents were also asked if they took notes while viewing a film. About 63 per cent said they had taken notes during the film and 36 per cent said 73 they did not. Two critics omitted the question. The 36 per cent who had not taken notes were asked what, if anything, they did to recall details of the film when they wrote a review. Thirty per cent said they relied on their memory, and 25 per cent relied on a combination of things including memory and plot summaries given to critics at screenings. Forty per cent said they relied on other things such as additional screenings, their files and advance material.

After viewing a movie, how soon do you generally write

your review?

Table 9. How soon critics wrote a review after seeing a film.

Length of Time ' Frequency

Immediately ...... 10.7% Within 5 hours ...... 14.3 Within 12 hours ...... 14.3 The next day ...... 33.9 Other ...... 10.7

Two additional questions were then asked concerning the review, itself.

Do you feel pressured by deadlines?

Are you usually told of an approximate number of inches

being set aside in the paper for your review? 74

Table 10. Newspaper film critics' experiences with deadline pressure and review length restrictions.

Response Deadline Pressure Given Column Felt Inches

Yes 28.6% 28.6% No 67.9 67.9 No answer _ 3.5 3.5

The 28.6 per cent that said they had been notified of the

space set aside were asked when they Were generally given the information. Fifty per cent of these said they were told before they went to the film; 25 per cent, immediately after the film; and the remaining 25 per cent answered they were told three hours after viewing the film or even later.

Is your copy edited by someone other than yourself?

This question-was designed to define the freedom critics have. About 71 per cent said their copy was edited by someone else. But 29 per cent said no one edited their copy, which is~a rather large percentage when only one of the fifty-six respondents answered that he did not have a superior. The others said they were primarily supervised by an editor, but were obviously given a considerable amount of freedom by not having their copy edited. Those

40 respondents, or 71 per cent, whose copy was edited were

asked who edited their work. 75

Table 11. Those who edited newspaper film critics' work.

Positions Frequency

Entertainment editor ...... 22.5% City editor...... 7.5 Managing editor ...... 15.0 Copy desk ...... 27.5 Other ...... ' 25.0 No response ...... 2.5

About 70 per cent of these edited writers said they have had no problems resulting from someone else editing their articles. A few admitted to having run into some difficulties; one had space problems; seven found their editors used poor judgment in cutting copy or were unable to understand what the critic had written well enough to trim the articles without changing the interpretation.

Two attributed their problems to other reasons, such as the changing of certain words thought obscene or improper.

Who is your immediate superior?

About 20 per cent said the entertainment editor was their immediate superior; 7 per cent were supervised by the Sunday department editor; 16 per cent, the city editor; 34 per cent, the managing editor; and 23 per cent answered others, such as the feature editor or the modern living editor.

Since the question of "freebies" has come up often in recent discussions of newspaper policy, neWSpaper film 76 critics were asked whether they were given complimentary tickets by local theater owners. If so, they were asked if they use them. Some 82 per cent said they did get such tickets and of these, some 78 per cent said they used them.

The 17 per cent who said they did not use their free tickets were divided in their reasons for not doing so.

Two said it was newspaper policy, four said it was their own policy and two said it was a combination of the first two reasons.

Newspaper movie critics were asked if they write any other articles on the motion picture industry for their paper. Forty-one (73.2 per cent) of the fifty-six respondents said they did. Table 12 illustrates their response as to the kinds of articles they write.

Table 12. Kinds of articles critics had written besides reviews.

Kinds of Articles Frequency

Feature stories ...... 14.6%

COlumnS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O

InterViews O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 O 3 Combination of first three ...... 70.7 other 0 O O O O O O O . O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 O 3

There is very little question whether critics read other critics' reviews. Only one respondent said he did not read other reviews. In most cases, critics read a 77

number of publications. Out of the fifty-five who said

they had read other reviews, forty-seven, or 85.5 per cent,

had read them in newspapers, some being the New York Times,

The Village Voice, Christian Science Monitor and Women's

Wear Daily with Rex Reed's column. The other eight critics

had read only magazine reviews. The table below shows the

frequency that certain magazines.were read by the fifty-

five who responded to the question.

Table 13. Percentage of newspaper film critics that read reviews in five national publications.

Publications Frequency

The New Yorker ...... 43.6% Newsweek ...... 50.9

Tlme O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O 56.4

Esquire ...... 32.7 Variety ...... 12.7

About 35 per cent of the fifty-five listened to radio and

television reviews. Half, or 50 per cent, listed some

specific publications where they had read reviews, including

Playboy, Sight and Sound, Boxoffice, Saturday Review, New

York Magazine and The New Republic.

Section C

The third section of the questionnaire was designed

to determine what critics knew about the readers they 78 served and what these critics felt their influence was on the readers.

Why do you think your readers go to movies?

The critics were asked to rank four categories numberically. These were (1) entertainment, (2) education,

(3) artistic experience, (4) other. Some 92.9 per cent ranked entertainment first and the remainder ranked the category other first. Of the fifty-six critics who used a ranking system, the majority ranked education third, artistic experience second, and the category other fourth as to why their readers go to movies. The following chart shows a comprehensive list as they were most often ranked from first to fourth by the fifty-six respondents.

Table 14. Percentage of critics that ranked reasons persons attended movies in the following order.

Rank Category Frequency

1 Entertainment 92.9% 2 Artistic experience 46.4 3 Education 41.1 4 Other: such as sex, cheap thrills, etc. 42.9

As is evident, the critics almost totally agreed that entertainment was the main reason their readers go to movies. For the other three categories, though, there was less than 50 per cent agreement in their ranking importance. 79

Part of this may be due to the fact that several critics did not rank the categories but merely picked one.

Secondly, newspaper film critics were asked to rank kinds of films in the order they felt their readers like each kind best. Thirty-two per cent did not rank the choices, so merely the number, if any, who chose each category as their readers' favorite, will be designated.

Some 5.4 per cent said they believed their readers liked musicals best, while 19.6 per cent said suspense was their readers' first choice. Only 3.6 per cent chose drama first and likewise two chose erotic films first. The largest percentage, 35.7 per cent, said they believed comedy to be their readers' favorite. The categories westerns, art films, horror and rock music films listed on the questionnaire were never selected as the films their readers liked best.

In the next question, a similar number refused to rank the categories. Fifteen, or 28.6 per cent, omitted the question Who do you think most often reads your reviews?

Table 15 shows the number of critics who designated each group as the one who most often reads their reviews.

The next question asked critics whether they felt they had any influence on what movies their readers viewed.

Few committed themselves at the two ends of the scale, no influence and strong influence, as Table 16 shows. p“ 80 \

Table 15. Percentage of critics who designated a specific group as the one who most often read their reviews.

Category of Persons Frequency

Housewives ...... 19.6% Businessmen ...... 3.6 Students ...... 19.6 Professionals ...... 23.2 Unemployed ...... 1.8 Laborers ...... 3.6 Craftsmen ...... 1.8 Senior Citizens ...... 0.0

Table 16. Amount of influence newspaper critics felt they had on their readers.

Amount of Influence Frequency

No influence ...... 5.4% Strong influence ...... 3.6 Little influence ...... 39.3 Moderate influence ...... 51.8

The following was one of two Open-ended questions given those surveyed: How do you determine what influence you have on your readers?

After reading a number of responses, meaningful answer categories were set up for coding purposes. Forty- one per cent fell in the category of determining influence by readers' comments; by word of mouth. Some nine per cent

said they determined influence by theater operators' feed- back, and 25 per cent said they used a combination of the 81 first two categories. About 14 per cent had other responses, including that they did not try to determine their influence and that it was impossible to tell whether they influence their readers.

How often do readers generally communicate with you?

In Table 17, it is shown that critics were divided evenly among the six possible categories as to frequency.

Table 17. Frequency that readers communicated with newspaper film critics.

Communications Frequency

2-3 times a month ...... 21.4% Once a week ...... 16.1 2-3 times a week ...... _. . 25.0 Once a day ...... 5.4 More than once a day ...... 16.1 Other ...... 14.3 No response ...... 1.8

Corresponding to the above question, critics were asked how their readers communicated with them most often.

Some 12.5 per cent said by letters to the editor, 19.6 per cent said by telephone, 21.4 per cent answered in person,

10.7 per cent said personal letters, and 8.9 per cent received communications in all categories equally. Twenty- six and eight-tenths per cent said there were other ways,

including the combination of a couple of the above categories. 82

What percentage of these communications expressed

agreement with your views?

The chart below shows that the bulk of newspaper film critics felt that some 40 to 74 per cent of their communications from readers expressed agreement with the critic's views. Some 73.2 per cent of the respondents said that readers' agreement with their views was some- where above 40 per cent in their communications.

Table 18. Amount of agreement with critics' views as was communicated to them by their readers.

Amount of Agreement Frequency

Over 90 per cent ...... 12.5% 90-75 per cent ...... 21.4 74-40 per cent ...... 39.3 39-10 per cent ...... 8.9 9-1 per cent ...... 3.6 None ...... 1.8

Seven of the respondents omitted the question

The final question in the third section asked critics whether they felt pressured to refrain from using certain terms or ideas in their reviews. The majority or

66.1 per cent said they did not feel pressured in this manner. The 33.9 per cent who did feel pressured were asked what kind of terms they refrained from using and where the pressure to do so came from. Table 19 lists 83

those categories of words these pressured critics refrained

from using in reviews.

Table 19. Percentage of critics who felt pressure to refrain from using certain terms.

Categories of Terms Frequency

Extremely negative words on long run films . . . 5.3% Foreign or technical terms ...... 10.5 Specific sex verbs or nouns ...... 21.1 Obscenities or four-letter words ...... 36.8 Combination of sex terms and Obscenities . . . . 10.5 Other reasons ...... 5.3 No response ...... 10.5

The majority of the pressure to refrain from using

certain terms seemed to lie with editorial policy. Over

half, or 57.9 per cent, said their pressure came from this

area. Some 5.3 per cent said it came from the advertising

department policy, 10.5 per cent said community attitude

accounted for most of the pressure they felt, and 26.3 per

cent said it came from other areas including their own

personal policy or a combination of the other categories

they were given to choose from.

Section D

In the fourth section of the questionnaire, it was

endeavored to find newspaper film critics' responses to

several general questions. They will later be compared 84 with the critics' responses to questions in the previous sections.

What do you think should be the goal of film as a

medium?

The respondents' answers to this first question showed some difference of opinion. Finding the answer difficult to pinpoint to one area, twenty-three of the critics selected the category other. Some 12.5 per cent said the goal should be true art. About 28.6 per cent said it should be entertainment. In an earlier question, respondents found entertainment unequivocally the primary reason readers go to the movies. Not one of the fifty-six selected the category education, but 8.9 per cent said it should be a combination of true art, entertainment and education. Two omitted the question.

The next three questions were an attempt to determine what newspaper film critics thought was an adequate definition of critic, reviewer and film criticism. The

three following tables show the results.

The critics were asked which term they used most often, film or movie, an effort to settle an unending argument as to which term showed the most serious View of the medium. It has been said that mgzig is a frivolous term and should not be used by those serious about film.

The movie critics surveyed appeared through their response to see very little distinction between the two terms. 85

Table 20. Percentage of critics choosing each statement as the best definition of a critic.

Definitions of a Critic Frequency

He is an artist himself ...... 8.9% He is a writer whose responsibility it is to raise the standards of motion pictures . . . . 14.3 He dissects and analyzes films in both a historical and contemporary context . . . . . 55.4 He is strictly interested in art, not trash . . 1.8

(Eleven or 19.6 per cent omitted the question or marked more than one and so had to be eliminated from the survey.)

Table 21. Percentage of critics choosing each statement as the best definition of a reviewer.

Definitions of a Reviewer Frequency

He tells readers how he "liked the work" and briefly retells the story of the film . . . . 39.3% He writes from the vantage point of film as entertainment ...... 30.4 He is a shield between bad movies and the public 8.9

Table 22. Percentage of critics choosing each statement as the best definition of criticism.

Definitions of Criticism Frequency

It informs, interprets and stimulates readers . 64.3% It is "a creation within a creation" ...... 1.8 It views and reviews all films as art . . . . . 5.4 It guides the public to and away from films . . 12.5 It functions for movies as the "where to dine" listings do for food ...... 5.4 It recognizes a distinguished work and keeps it alive ...... 5.4

Three (5.4 per cent) said they used motion picture most often in their reviews. Twenty (35.7 per cent) responded that they used mgmig, while the same number used the term fiim. Nine (16.1 per cent) used both terms movie and fiim interchangeably. Two said the decision to use one or the other term depended on their-mood or other reasons. As for cinematic production, it elicited such reactions as

"what about flickers" and "never cinematic production, for

God's sake."

What course of schooling would you recommend to an

aspiring motion picture critic?

This question was designed to help determine whether newspaper film critics' choices coincided with their own education and to give aspiring critics a recommended path to follow, educationally.

Table 23. Newspaper critics' suggested schooling for aspiring critics.

Schooling Frequency

Journalism major with a film minor ...... 35.7%

Film major O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10.7 Journalism major ...... 5.4 Liberal arts major ...... ‘. . . . 19.6 Other ...... 28.6

Surprisingly, only a few recommended a journalism major, while 31.5 per cent of the respondents had received a journalism background themselves.

The difference probably concerns the question which asked what major they would recommend for an aspiring critic. Many of them probably did not go to school with the resolve to become a critic.

The second open-ended question in the survey was one which critics claim they are constantly asked--List your ten all-time favorite films. Judith Crist once said the search for an answer to this inevitable question "is in part for an open-sesame to the soul (let alone standards, stupidity and small mindedness of the critic) and in part for confirmation of the questioner's secret selec- tion." She said it is as scary "as the 'who-do—you-love- best-in-the-whole-world?' inquisitions of childhood.65

Maybe this is the reason that eleven (19.6 per cent) of the fifty—six respondents left the question blank.

The reviewers who responded to it mentioned some 230 movies in their lists. All the films that were mentioned were listed and tabulated. The tOp twelve ranking motion pictures are shown in Table 24.

65 Judith Crist, Favorite Movies: Critic's Choice,

p. 196. 88

Table 24. Critics' choice—top 12 motion pictures.

Motion Pictures Frequency

Gone With the Wind (1939) ...... 32.1% Citizen Kane (1941) ...... 30.4 Casablanca (1942) ...... 14.3 The Godfather (1973) ...... 12.5 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) ...... 12.5 §§ (1963) ...... 12.5 Cabaret (1971) ...... 10.7 Midnight Cowboy (1969) ...... 10.7 Cries and Whispers (1972) ...... 10.7 La Grande Illusion (1937) ...... 10.7 Dr. Strangelove (1963) ...... 10.7 The Sting (1974) ...... 10.7

Seven motion pictures, each chosen by five respondents, made up a list of "also mentioned" favorites. They were Kingiof Hearts, Jules and Jim (1961), Chinatown

(1974), La Strada (1954), Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

(1967), and Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid (1969).

Section E

The final section of the survey dealt with demo- graphics variables, i.e., age, education, etc. of the fifty-six respondents. Three of these variables have been tabulated in Tables 25, 26 and 27.

The critics surveyed offered a big difference between the number of females and the number of males.

The females were outnumbered more than four to one, as 89

Table 25. Percentage of respondents in each age grouping.

Age Categories Frequency

20 to 30 ...... 48.2% 31-37 ...... 16.1

38-45 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 14.3

46-55 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10.7 56-65 ...... 8.9

over 65 I O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 1.8

Table 26. Percentage of respondents completing varied levels of education.

Levels of Education Frequency

3 to 4 years of college ...... 3.6% l to 2 years of college ...... 8.9 College graduate ...... 51.8 Master's degree ...... 25.0 Other kinds of schooling ...... 8.9

Table 27. Percentage of respondents in varied salary levels.

Annual Income Frequency

Below $10,000 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30.4% $10,000 to $14,999 ...... 35.7 $15,000 to $19,999 ...... 16.1 Over $20,000 ...... 16.1

82.1 per cent of the respondents were male. Some 17.9 per cent were female.

Only eleven of the fifty-six respondents had professional affiliations with organizations concerned with music, drama, motion pictures or criticism. These eleven

(19.6 per cent) were asked to list the organization or organizations they belonged to. They included the New

York Film Critics Circle, Boxoffice, professional/semi- professional theater groups, Actor's Equity Association,

Broadway Theatre League and the National Society of Film

Critics. CHAPTER V

COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES

After Chapter IV's detailed account of newspaper critics' responses to each item in the questionnaire, it is now necessary to sit back and take a broader look at the results and to draw some conclusions from them.

Additional comments made by respondents can also give further insight on the field of newspaper film criticism.

First, this study will try to make what could be referred to as a "comparison of attitudes;" a matching and evaluation of the respondents' answers to one question with those on another question in hopes of a better understanding of today's newspaper movie writer; particularly, an understanding of aspects of his job not easily drawn out by the general questionnaire.

A significant number of newspaper motion picture writers questioned said they had been trained in film. Of course, it can be assumed that this training could aid them in making more intelligent, well-founded statements about movies appearing at their local theaters. The real question, though, is how does it affect the opinion of these critics and their readers in regards to the worth of motion

91 92 picture critical comment? Do film-trained critics find that their reviews elicit more confidence and influence than those of non-trained critics?

In comparing the survey's some 53.5 per cent with film training to that 46.4 per cent without film training, there is a small but noticeable difference in their opinions of their influence on readers.

Among critics with film training, 63.3 per cent said they felt they had moderate to strong influence on their readers. The lesser percentage, 36.7 per cent, felt their views had little or no influence on readers.

On the other hand, among those 46 per cent without film training, the highest percentage felt they had little or no influence on their readers. Over half, 53.8 per cent, of those not trained in film said they had little or no influence. Some 46.2 per cent of the surveyed critics without film training said they had moderate to strong influence.

Though the percentage was closer among those untrained in film, there is an obvious difference in the amount of influence they feel they have in comparison with film-trained newspaper movie critics.

Another point of confusion this questionnaire attempted to resolve is what a newspaper writer on film should and wOuld like to be called--critic or reviewer or something else entirely. 93

What is the fine line that separates these two words or do they in fact carry, for all essential purposes, the same meaning? As it was previously said, newspaper writers seldom distinguish between the words critic and reviewer. What should be given notice is the fact that only 58.9 per cent use either term to describe their position. Of the remaining percentage, 8.9 per cent, said they use critic and reviewer interchangeably. The others said terms such as general reporter, newspaperman, jour-

nalist, conduit of information and editor provided a better

description of their job.

Whether film training.has any bearing on this name calling has been little discussed. This study might shed some light on this facet. ,Newspaper writers with film training divided almost evenly between calling themselves a critic or reviewer. But,.among those with no training,

34.6 per cent chose reviewer and 23 per cent said they call themselves critics.

It could be concluded then that among themselves, newspaper movie writers differentiate between the terms critic and reviewer primarily in the sense of training.

But as there is very little evidence concerning the use of either one term or the other, the issue will probably remain for the most part unsolvable.

One other idea can be examined in trying to develop a better understanding of the two terms. As was 94

discussed in the preceding chapter, critics were asked to mark the one statement of several given which best

described a critic. The same procedure was used to determine the statement that best describes a reviewer. These

statements were chosen from definitions given by a number

of well-known individuals concerned with the field of

criticism.

Table 28. Definitions chosen by the respondents as the best for describing a critic and a reviewer.

k ..

Term Definition Frequency

Critic He dissects and analyzes films in both a historical and contemporary context. 55.4%

Reviewer He tells readers how he "liked the work" and briefly retells the story of the film. 39.3 or He writes from the vantage point of film as entertainment. 30.4

It is evident that newspaper film writers feel

scholarly analysis separates the term critic from reviewer.

But, it must be remembered that only forty-five of the

fifty-six respondents found a statement among those given

which they felt best described either term. There is still

room left for doubt. n.

CIIII'

1.]

Iall: 95

One of the most encouraging facets of the questionnaire results is that 64 per cent of the respondents chose the statement, "It informs, interprets and stimulates readers," as the one definition that best described criticism. NeWSpaper critics should remember that they must continue to try to reach readers. It is their primary goal as media and whether they are scholarly or look more toward the entertainment side of film, they must remember the audience for which they are writing.

This questionnaire was developed, in part, to provide an education profile prospective film critics might use as a guideline or reference. Very little has been written about the movie critic's background. Such information should prove helpful to others considering the field.

The fifty-six who returned the questionnaire showed, as a whole, a preference for a journalism major and film minor as the most direct and best course for an aspiring motion picture writer to follow. On the other hand, aside from those choosing assorted combinations, such as a communication arts major with a drama and film minor, and a film major with a journalism minor; a rather large percentage chose the liberal arts route.

This could be due to the fact that many respondents themselves had received an education that could be placed under a liberal arts heading. Forty—two per cent marked 96 the category other in the questionnaire, and when asked to specify in most cases they listed two or three subjects, such as history, journalism and.English, or psychology and theater in which they had done concentrated study.

One respondent who checked liberal arts as the area toward which he would direct a young motion picture critic said that an emphasis on film.or a film minor could be useful, but he felt that it was not essential "if a person knows how to read, and can thus do independent study in the field."

Table 29 shows the type education the fifty-six respondents recommended. Responses are divided according to whether the respondent had any film training.

Table 29. Education recommended by critics with and without training.

Respondent4 Respondents Without Training

College With Training Notlmaining of No Major Training valuable Some Value Comment

Jrn. and film 33.3% 3.8% 30.8% 2.7% Film major 10.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 Jrn. major 3.3 0.0 7.7 0.0 Liberal arts 23.3 7.7 7.7 0.0 Other 30.0 0.0 26.9 0.0

It is interesting that more writers trained in film would recommend a liberal arts education than those that had not been trained in it. It is possible that some of the respondents feel a motion picture writer can be

"too knowledgeable," a concern that is often voiced by news persons today. These respondents may have chosen the liberal arts route as a caution.against this.

Also of interest is the fact that of the three non- trained respondents who said they felt film training of no value, one recommended a journalism major and a film minor.

The two respondents without film training who did not comment on film training's value, also picked the journalism major with a film minor. It can be assumed, perhaps, for this reason that they actually do think film training of some value.

As previously stated, twenty newspaper persons responded, but did not answer all questions. They gave four main reasons for not filling out the questionnaire.

The main reason was that the newspaper did not review films. Table 30 shows the reasons.

Among these twenty responses, one paper's View on movie criticism stands out. An assistant managing editor of a daily with a circulation over 100,000 wrote the following:

We use Joe Gelmis of Newsday in the p.m. paper, Bernard Drew of Gannett News Service in the a.m. They file reviews when the film is shown in New 98

York and hold them until it opens in Rochester. This has improved the quality of reviews, we think.

Table 30. Reason papers listing a motion picture or entertainment editor no longer used movie reviews; comparison in circulation.

Reasons for Not Having Movie Reviews

Circulation Fewer Use Syndicated No Just Do Theaters Reviewers Critic Not Review

Over 50,000 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20,000 - 49,999 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 10,000 - 19,999 5.0 0.0 5.0 15.0 Less than 9,999 0.0 5.0 10.0 5.0

An entertainment editor of a daily with a circula-

tion over 150,000 said that in the past he had reviewed

films. But, since 1973 his paper had adopted a policy of not advertising, reviewing or covering in news space any

R or x-rated film. He said he had.decided not to review at all rather.than be stuck with Walt Disney and adventure

films.

A third respondent, writing for an approximately

13,000 circulation paper, voiced a complaint in which

lies the reason numerous smaller community papers do not review movies.

"Sad to say our community has but one theater which

is in deplorable condition, showing primarily X—rated shows.

There is very small attendance and we do no reviews." 99

At the conclusion of the questionnaire, respondents were asked for further comments. A number of them did com— ment both about the questionnaire itself and about their personal feelings as a movie critic.

A part-time university teacher of film courses voiced concern that a survey of this sort tries to com- partmentalize film critics or to identify trends that might not really be trends.. This is a common danger of any questionnaire or survey, and the researcher must realize that there are often exceptions to the rule.

A writer for a newspaper with a circulation of

350,000 said he does not seek or want make-or-break power over a film. "I seek to persuade, to give reasons and with many films I'm not crazy about, I hope people go to them anyway," he wrote.

"The biggest problem I face as a writer/reviewer is the enternal question of why review in the first place?" said a critic who works for.an.over-30,000.circulation. paper. "Reviews are predominantly expressions of opinions. and are worth no more or no less," he said.. He said he felt that opinions can stir debate and discussion, but felt there should be more to a review than.just opinion.

"If the reviewer doesn't take the role of the audience and attempt to show meaning and explain character-_ izations, much of the reason for his very existence is nullified." 100

A California critic wrote that the critics of his acquaintance by and large were a sorry lot, "visible donkeys for the Business, image conscious and bitchy."

If they were sometimes useful as watchers to a film maker, he said, they were seldom credited except in the commerce of product. "More often, errant judgments, and such occur in process, bring the critic scorn from the very people whom he need engage in dialogue," he said.

A brief comment on the difference between a reviewer and a critic came.from a writer for a 37,107- circulation newspaper:

I think the difference between a reviewer and a critic is a matter of experience and insight as well as a matter of avowed purpose. Much as I would like to consider myself a critic (I feel I have the necessary insight into films), I haven't the background to give the work its proper perspective. This can only come with time. .

A comment by a critic on a 622,236—circulation newspaper might be of particular interest to prospective film critics:

I think too many college students become wrapped up in films (some probably literally as well as figur- atively) and think that the.world exists on celluloid. So they learn about movies and then think that they are qualified to write for a daily news— paper. If I were hiring someone to write about motion pictures, my first objective would be to find a good writer. Second, he should be a good reporter. Third, he should have an interest in movies, and should basically like the medium. I would not care if he had never seen a splicer or if he knew the difference between a dissolve and a sprocket-hole. 101

This critic, who himself had no film training, said he enjoyed writing about movies. "If people read and react favorably to what I write, so much the better. If they react unfavorably, so be it," he wrote. He said he wrote on a highly subjective level, but tried to be consistent so readers could take this into account in making up their minds as to whether a given picture was worth seeing.

A lengthy yet extremely interesting response on his personal feelings about reviewing movies came from a critic on a newspaper with a circulation of 127,955. His comments:

I think a lot of newspaper movie reviewers are tending to hold themselves up as talking about some Holy Grail; when as many people as do say, "Well if that newspaper critic likes it, I'm certainly not going" or "If so—and-so rapped it, it must be pretty good," we lose all credibility, and our self—assigned "high standards“ are just pie in the sky for all any— body believes us. I think a good case in point is a recent movie "The Longest Yard!" It's on my lO-best list for the year; I'll bet not another critic in the country will make that statement, or at least not without hanging his head. The movie took almost unanimous raps, yet it is still playing here after 24 weeks. Dammit, people like it, and not for the same reason they liked "Walking Tall." It is perfectly innocuous entertain— ment, and it is a damn well-made, fast-moving film and PEOPLE LIKE IT, and in my initial review I said it was "terrific movie entertainment," for which my critical colleagues wagged quite a finger at me. Now during the course of the review I mentioned that morally, this movie didn't have a leg to stand on, particularly with Attica only five years and 40 miles distant. Anybody that read that far, they really got a bone to chew on—-but if I tell them it's garbage and then 77,000 people go out and enjoy, who the hell is going to believe me when I recommend "A 102

Tall Blond Man With One Black Shoe" or "Day for Night"? . "Walking Tall" and "Death Wish," now there's something else again, two brutal, vicious, blood- rankling polemics, neither based on the slightest shred of fact, yet seemingly somewhat documentary. They, too, had enormous audiences. I think in the .face of a wave such as this, the newspaper reviewer best serves his public by coming back around after such a movie has made a smash, and defining for the audience why the movie.roused them to such an extent. Now there's a service ...... I think maybe I got audiences out for "Rabbi Jacob" and "Harry and Tonto" and "Tall Blond Man," and if I was able to do this because I "lower my standards" and call entertainment entertainment, then it's all worth it. CHAPTER VI

COMPARISON OF RESPONSES WITH

THE STUDY'S HYPOTHESES

"A ribbon of dreams."

This was what writer, producer Orson Wells called the cinema and to a large extent dreams are what much of the cinema was built on from the early films of Edison to

Welles' Citizen Kane.

But, history says that for those who took it upon themselves to criticize and applaud this "ribbon" in print, there have been few dreams and a long struggle to gain acceptance from the cinema and its artists.

Today moviegoers may pay some attention to the professional critic, if only to check his review before buying a ticket. Altshuler and Janaro said in Responses to Drama that "those who don't (check critics' reviews) are forced to rely on advertising or a friend's opinion. Neither of these is as reliable as that of a good, responsible critic whose evaluations have proven trustworthy in the past."66

The assumption that neWSpaper motion picture critics do have some influence on readers is one of eight

66Altshuler and Janaro, Responses, p. 141.

103 104 hypotheses on which this study was founded. As a final note, these hypotheses will be briefly reviewed to test their validity in the face of the questionnaire findings.

(1) Most newspaper film critics feel they have some

influence on their readers.

Though only 3.6 per cent said they felt they have a strong influence on their readers, about 91 per cent claimed to feel some influence on readers, though of a lesser degree. Thus the assumption could be said to be true for about 95 per cent of today's newspaper motion picture writers.

(2) Most newspaper movie critics, particularly those

working full-time, have some training or educa-

tion in film.

Over half of the fifty-four respondents had film training, much of it being in college and university courses, though only two critics had majored in film in college. Since about 46 per cent of the respondents in this study had not had any film training, the use of the word mggf in the above hypothesis is unsubstantiated.

(3) Most newspaper movie critics have a journalism

background.

When asked what they had majored in while in college, the fifty-four respondents' replies ranged over twenty-two different areas of study. Only about 32 per cent said they had majored in journalism. About 13 per 105 cent had double majors which included journalism. Thus altogether about 45 per cent could be said to have a journalism background. Again the word mggf seems too strong.

The result is surprising in regards to other studies and statements concerning critics' backgrounds.

For example, the 1969 Harris Poll found that when editors are looking for critics, they most often look within their own medium and hire a journalist.

But, there is also another way to look at the journalism background question. The respondents were asked whether they had held another position on their respective newspaper before being selected as a critic.

Here the results showed that 75 per cent of the news— paper film critics had held another position on their newspaper before becoming a critic. This experience in news, editing, sports, and other areas could certainly be considered journalism background, and serve as substantial proof of the researcher's hypothesis.

(4) Most newspaper film critics have held another

position on the paper prior to assuming their

present position as a reviewer.

Since about 75 per cent of the respondents said they had held another position on their newspaper before being assigned as movie critic, there is support of this hypothesis. It also, unfortunately, gives further 106 evidence to the 1969 Harris Poll conclusion that most editors choose critics from their staff members rather than hiring someone from outside the paper who might have more expertise in the arts.

(5) Most newspaper film critics hold another posi-

tion on the paper in addition to reviewing.

Criticism is most often a part-time assignment as this study shows. About 88 per cent of the respondents are part—time critics, and over 60 per cent of these critics said they spend less than ten hours of their work— week on film criticism. The majority also said they held a combination of jobs on their newspaper, usually including something outside the arts field such as news, copy editing or sports reporting.

(6) Most newspaper movie critics are not mere

reporters of their likes and dislikes, as many

magazine critics have charged, but they also

try to show a film in its historical perspective

and give readers an insight into their views.

Though this hypothesis cannot be easily measured, some conjecture can be made concerning its validity. This can be done by examining the statement the largest percentage of reSpondents chose as the best definition of criticism. Over 60 per cent picked the statement made that criticism "informs, interprets and stimulates readers."j 107

Only 5 per cent chose the statement "It functions for movies as the 'where to dine' listings do for food."

(7) Most newspaper film critics consider themselves

as critics. Those who don't either feel there

is little difference between the terms critic

and reviewer or that neither term provides a

satisfactory description of their job.

The study disproves the first portion of the hypotheses since more respondents called themselves reviewers than critics. The second half of the hypothesis, however, is valid. Only a little more than half of the respondents thought that either term best described their present position. This could largely be due to the fact that about 88 per cent of the respondents were part-time motion picture writers and hold other jobs on the news— paper that are not explained by the words critic and reviewer.

(8) Most newspaper film critics work for papers in

cities of 50,000 and over.

Of the 150 newspaper motion picture, entertainment and amusement editors surveyed in this study, some 62 per cent work for papers in cities with a population of 50,000 and over. The hypothesis is valid, though not as strong as previously supposed by the researcher. When looking at circulation figures, though, it is obvious that a number of the newspapers from these larger cities have a much 108 smaller circulation count. Only 43 per cent of those critics surveyed work on a paper of a circulation of 50,000 and over.

The paradox of newspaper film critics being called superstars on one hand and thought of as something lower than garbage men on the other is just one of the many that have been used to show the ambiguity of their function.

Is the newspaper film critic an educator, a pursuer of excellence or merely a consumer's guide to what's playing at the local theater? Is he, as some magazine critics have charged, "a sweaty-palmed deadline typist hacking out a 5,000 word substanceless review in some 3,600

seconds"?67

According to newspaper motion picture writers themselves, though they are sometimes pressured by dead~

lines and are necessarily limited to a certain amount of print space, they are not and do not pretend to be merely consumer guides.

They feel like Arthur Cooper who said "Criticism

is not the function of an enlightened or unholy few but a human faculty that plays an important part in everyone's reading of and relation to the world."68

7Cooper, "Critic as Superstar," p. 98. 681bid. 109

The critic's job is to criticize art but, as

Matthew Arnold said, art itself is a criticism of life.

The critic shows us how life works or is not working by showing us how art works.

Cooper quotes an artist and critic, Harold

Clurman, in words that probably define the majority of newspaper film critics' views of their position as well as or better than anything in this study:

"I don't hold up the torch of art. I hold up the

torch of living."69

69Ibid. APPENDIX 110

SURVEY OF NEWSPAPER FILM CRITICS/REVIEWERS

This questionnaire is divided into five sections, each designed to gather information about a particular facet of newspaper movie criticism/reviewing. Place a check mark in the Space provided by the answer that seems best to you. In some cases a response Leads to one or more additional questions. Please answer these before completing the rest of the questionnaire.

A. IN THIS SECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SOME BASIC FACTS ABOUT YOU AS A NEWSPAPER CRITIC/REVIEWER.

A1. Are you a full time film critic/reviewer?

1'" yes no

If no: a. How much of your normal work week is spent on film criticism?

over 30 hours a week 20-30 hours a week 10-20 hours a week less than 10 hours a week

b. What other newspaper jobs do you have in addition to that of film critic/reviewer?

music, art or drama critic news reporter home or women's department reporter sports reporter .) other (Please specify)

A2. How many years have you held your present position as a motion picture critic/reviewer?

less than 1 year 1-3 years 4-6 years 7-10 years

over 10 years

A3. Are you the only movie critic/reviewer published in your newspaper?

yes no

If no: What other reviewers/critics are printed in the newspaper? (Please list)

beco :rg wer?

___ yes ___ no

If "es: n'at :.:e of seeition did you ro.d° 4T

news production sports advertising 0 other (Please specify)

AS. Have you written any other kinds of artistic reviews?

(D m . no

)

lIf yes: Check all th \ se abo at which V8 w it: n r you ha r (I) e V IEWS o rock or soul music ballet folk music television/radio jazz or blues music theatre classical music other (Please specify) \V

A6. Have you had any courses, seminars or other kinds of training in film?

—- yes —— no a

{If yes: Which of the following If no: Do you feel such training have you had? would be beneficial to your job? classes in film history classes in film production not at all classes on specific directors, of some value i.e. Hitchcock (specify) valuable

very valuable I 'III

independent study (specify)

film festivals (specify)

other (Specify)

A7. If you attended college, did you major in film?

If no: What was your major?

112

A8. Have you ever been associated with the production of a play, musical, or movie?

yes no

If yes: a. What did you do?

b. Are you currently associated with the production of a play, musical or movie?

yes no

If yes: What are you doing? Jr

A9. Did you ever consider pursuing a career in drama or film?

yes no

[: If yes: What changed your mind?

A10. Which term do you think best describes your position?

reviewer critic other (Please specify)

All. What title does your newspaper use in your by-line?

B. IN THIS SECTION WE ARE INTERESTED IN FINDING OUT MORE ABOUT YOUR JOB AS A CRITIC/REVIEWER.

Bl. On the average, how many films do you view a week?

1 2 3 4 5 more than 5

82. How often do you write film reviews for your newspaper?

less than once a week once a week twice a week three or more times a week 113

B3. How do you prepare for viewing a movie? (Which of the following do you do?)

read about the director read publicity sheets read other reviews of the movie any combination of these three other (Please specify)

How much time do you generally spend in preparation for viewing a film?

none less than 1 hour 1 hour 2-3 hours more than 3 hours

BS. Do you take notes during the viewing of a film?

yes no

If no: What do you rely on for recall of details in the film?

strictly memory plot summaries given at screenings combination of the first two other (Please specify)

B6. After viewing a movie, hOW'SOOH do you generally write your review?

immediately within 5 hours within 12 hours the next day

other (Please specify)

B7. Do you feel pressured by deadlines?

yes no ___—-

B8. Are you usually told of an approximate number of inches being set aside in the paper for your review?

yes no _—

If yes: When are you generally told about the length of review needed?

before the movie immediately after the movie over 3 hours after the movie

114

B9. Is your copy edited by someone other than yourself?

yes no

I If yes: a. Who is it edited by?

entertainment editor city editor managing editor copy desk

other (Please specify) |||||

b. What problems, if any, do you think result from others editing your copy?

810. Who is your immediate superior?

entertainment editor Sunday department editor city editor managing editor other (Please specify)

811. Are you given any complementary tickets by the local theatre owners?

yes no

—_

If yes: Do you use them?

yes no

If no: Why not?

newspaper policy your own policy combination of the first two other (Please specify)

312. Do you write any other articles on the motion picture industry for your newspaper?

yes no

If yes: What other types of articles?

feature stories columns interviews any combination of these three other (Please specify)

115

813. Do you read other critics' reviews?

yes no

If yes: Where do you read or listen to other movie reviews? (Check all those you use.)

____ other neWSpapers .___ television/radio ___ The New Yorker ___ other (Please specify) ____Newsweek ____ Time ___ Esquire \/

C. IN THIS SECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK OF YOUR READERS AND THE KIND OF PERSONAL RESPONSE YOU RECEIVE FROM THEM.

Cl. do you think your readers go to movies? (Please rank numerically) i?

entertainment education artistic experience other (Please specify)

C2. What kind of films do you think your readers like best? (Please rank)

musicals drama westerns horror art films rock music films foreign films comedy suspense erotic

C3. Who do you think most often reads your reviews? (Please rank)

housewives professionals businessmen unemployed students laborers senior citizens craftsmen

C4. Do you feel you have any influence on what movies your readers view?

no influence little influence moderate influence

strong influence

CS. How do you determine what influence you have on your readers? 116

C6. :1: CW often do readers generally communicate with you?

2-3 times a month once a week 2-3 times a week once a day more than once a day other (Please specify)

CW C7. :1: do readers communicate with you most often?

letters to the editor telephone in person personal letters other (Please specify)

C8. What percentage of these communications express agreement with your views?

over 90% 90-75% 74-40% 39-10%' 9-l%

C9. Do you feel pressured to refrain from using certain terms or ideas in your reviews?

yes nor

If yes: a. What terms or ideas do you refrain from using?

b. From where does this pressure come?

advertising department policy community attitude editorial policy local theatre owners' policy other (Please specify)

D. IN THIS SECTION WE ARE INTERESTED IN YOUR RESPONSE TO SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT CRITICISM/REVIEWING.

D1. What do you think should be the goal of film as a medium?

true art entertainment education cultural obligation other (Please specify)

117

D2. Which statement best describes a critic?

He is an artist himself. He is a writer who's responsibility it is to raise the standards of motion pictures. He dissects and analyzes films in both a historical and contemporary context. He is strictly interested in art, not trash.

D3. Which of the following statements best describes a reviewer?

He tells readers how he "liked the work" and briefly retells the story of the film. He writes from the vantage point of film as entertainment. He is a shield between bad movies and the public.

D4. Which of the following definitions of film criticism/reviewing do you agree with most?

It informs, interprets and stimulates readers It is "a creation within a creation” It views and reviews all films as art It guides the public to or away from films It functions for movies as the "where to dine" listings do for food

It recognizes a distinguished work and keeps it alive llllll

D5. In referring to the medium discussed in this questionnaire which term do you use most often?

motion picture cinematic production movie film other (Please specify)

D6. What course of schooling would you recommend to an aspiring motion picture critic/reviewer?

journalism major with film minor film major journalism major liberal arts major other (Please specify)

D7. List your ten all-time favorite films.

J-‘ri-J o

HOCDNO‘U'I o.

118

E. IN THIS FINAL SECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW A FEW FURTHER FACTS ABOUT YOU.

El. Age:

20-30 31-37 38-45 46-55 56-65 over 65

E2. Level of Education:

3-4 years of high school l-2 years of college college graduate master's degree other kinds of schooling (Please specify)

E3. What is your annual income? below $10,000 $10,000-14,999 $15,000-19,999

over $20,000

E4. Se :4

male _ female

E5. Do you have any professional affiliations with any organizations concerned with music, drama, motion pictures or criticism/reviewing?

yes no

If yes: Please list these organizations.

THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE USE THE BACK OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU HAVE.

119

COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS TO NON-RESPONDENTS BY POPULATION SIZE

Res ndents

500,000“ 300,000-499,999 100,000—299,999 75,000-99,999 50,000-74,000 25,000-49,999 10,000-24,999 Under 10,000 Population 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-16 17-20 21-24 Percentage of Critics

Non-Respondents 500,000- 18.9% 300,000-499,999 4.0% 100,000-299,999 14.9% 75,000-99,000 9.4%

50,000-74,999 6.7% 25,000-49,999 13.5% 10,000-24,999 20.3% Under 10,000 12.2%

Population 1-4 5-8 9-12 13-1617-2021-24 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adler, Renata. A Year in the Dark: Journal of a Film

Critic 1968-69 New York Times. New York: Random House, 1969.

Altshuler, Thelma and Janaro, Richard P. Responses to Drama. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967.

Benoit-Levy, Jean. The Literature of Cinema. New York: Coward-McCann, Inc., 1946.

Bobker, Leo R. Elements of Film. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1969.

Cowie, Peter, ed. A Concise History of the Cinema. London: The Tantivy Press, 1971.

Crist, Judith. "Ask me no Questions and I'll Tell You. . ." Favorite Movies: Critic's Choice. Edited by Philip Nobile. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.

. The Private Eye, the Cowboy and the Very Naked Girl. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

Day, Beth. This Was Hollywood: An Affectionate History of Filmland's Golden Years. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1960.

Dickinson, Thorold. A Discovery of Cinema. London: Oxford UniverSIty Press, 1971.

Giannetti, Louis D. Understanding Movies. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

Kael, Pauline. I Lost It At The Movies. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1954.

. "Movies, the Desperate Art." Film: Readings

M in the Mass Media. Edited by Allen and Linda Kirschner. New York: The Odyssey Press, 1971.

120 121

Kauffmann, Stanley, ed. with Bruce Henstell. American Film Criticism: From the Beginnings to Citizen Kane. New York: Liveright, 1972.

Knight, Arthur. The Liveliest Art: A Panoramic History of the Movies. New York: New American LIBrary, 1957.

Lindgren, Ernest. The Art of the Film. London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1918.

Nichols, Dudley. "Death of a Critic." Introduction to the Art of the Movies. Edited by Lewis Jacobs. New York:. The Noonday Press, 1960.

Nobile, Philip, ed. Favorite Movies: Critic's Choice. New York: The Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1973.

Nye, Russel. The Unembarrassed Muse: The Popular Arts in AmerICa. New York: The DIal Press, 1970.

Sarris, Andrew. "Film Criticism from Blurbs to Belles Lettres." The New American Cinema. Edited by Gregory Battcock. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967.

, ed. The Film. New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1968.

Schickel, Richard. Second Sight: Notes on Some Movies 1965-1970. New York: Simon and Sdhhster, I965.

Simon, John. Movies into Film: Film Criticism, 1967— 1970. New York: The Dial Press, 1971.

. Private Screenings. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967.

Slavitt, David. "Critics and Criticism." Man and The Movies. Edited by W. R. Robinson. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1967.

Taylor, Parker. "Is Film Criticism Only Propaganda?" The New American Cinema. Edited by Gregory Battcock. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967. 122

Vogel, Amos. "Thirteen Confessions." The New American Cinema. Edited by Gregory Battcock. ,New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1967.

Wilson, Robert, ed. The Film Criticism of Otis Ferguson. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1971.

Periodicals

Ace, Goodman. "The Critics," Saturday Review, November 28, 1964, p. 13.

Alpert, Hollis. "Film: The Bright Kingdom," Saturday Review World, August 10, 1974, pp. 98- 00.

Bauer, Leda V. "Movie Critics," American Mercury, January, 1929, pp. 73-74.

Bendow, Burton. "Film Critics; Lewis Jacobs and Andrew Sarris," Nation, October 12, 1907, pp. 344-345.

Cooper, Arthur. "Critic as Superstar," Newsweek, December 24, 1973, pp. 96-98.

"Criticism Hurts,“ Time, December 13, 1948, p. 102.

Ferguson, Otis. "The Case of the Critics," New Republic, January 2, 1942, p. 148.

Hirsch, Foster. "Personae of the Critic," Nation, June 28, 1971, pp. 823—824.

Hollis, Alpert. "Are movie critics necessary?," Saturday Review, October 13, 1962, pp. 58-59.

Kael, Pauline. "Current Cinema," New Yorker, January 23, 1971, pp. 76-80.

Koch, Stephen. "The Cruel, Cruel Critics," Saturday Review, December 26, 1970, pp. 12-14.

MacDonald, Dwight. "After 40 years of writing about movies, I know something about cinema and being a congenital critic," Esquire, July 1969, pp. 80—83.

Mead, Margaret. "Why we go to the Movies," Redbook, March, 1971, pp. 48-52. 123

O'Brien, J. "Critique on Critics," Harper's Bazaar, September, 1972, pp. 158-159.

Ronan, Margaret. "Movie Audiences Don't Change," Senior Scholastic, February 15, 1971, p. 18.

Schickel, Richard. "Movie Critic on Movie Critics," Harper's, January, 1970, pp. 97-99.

. "Movie Studies: Read All About It," Harper's, March, 1971, pp. 24-25.

Shayon, Robert. "Critics on the Critics," Saturday Review, March 21, 1970, pp. 52—53.

Troy, William. "Movie Cant and Criticism," Nation, February 8, 1933, p. 157.

Vidal, Gore. "Literary Gangsters," Commentary, March, 1970, pp. 61-64.

Newspapers

New York Times. September, 29, 1935; January 22, 1938; August 28, 1938.

Encyclopedia Articles

"Criticism," World Book Encyclopedia. 1960. Vol. III.

Unpublished Materials

Cushman, Donald P. "An Analysis of a Movie Critic," . Critical Perspectives on Communication. Unpublished Textbook, Michigan State University, 1973.

Maloney, Martin. "The Critical Instrument in Communications Study," Critical Perspectives on Communications, Unpublished Textbook, MIChigan State UniverSIty, 1973. Typed and Printed in the U.S.A. Professional Thesis Preparation Cliff and Paula Haughey , 144 Maplewood Drive 7 '1- East Lansing. Michigan 48823 " Telephone (517) 337-1527 "Illlllllllllllll